entity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false, meaning the tool can mutate state. The description adds value by listing specific mutating operations (move, rotate, scale, erase) and read operations, which gives an overview of behavioral scope. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or return value details beyond the operation names. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with clear headings for create, read, and modify operations. Each operation is presented as a compact, single-line signature. There is no filler or redundant prose, making it easy to scan and reference despite covering many operations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all major operations and their parameter schemas, which is sufficient for an agent to construct valid calls. An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented elsewhere. The description does not address error conditions or coordinate system specifics, but for a broad entity tool it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains how general parameters like data, x1, x2, points, and entity_id are used for each operation, including nested structures for operations like create_circle and data for create_hatch. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a clear statement of purpose: 'Entity creation, querying, and modification.' It then enumerates specific operations (create_line, create_circle, list, get, move, erase, etc.) with distinct verbs and resources. This clearly differentiates the tool's scope from sibling tools like drawing, layer, or block by focusing on entity-level operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by listing operations and their parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like block or annotation. There are no 'when not to use' or 'use X tool instead' statements. However, the grouping of operations gives a clear sense of the tool's domain, so it provides adequate context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.