geometry_add_feature

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

The description states it adds a feature and returns created feature info, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or prerequisites. With no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 verbose with a long list of feature types and args, including boilerplate for kwargs. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the list adds unnecessary length. Could be more concise.

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 explains the return value and gives a basic outline of parameters. However, it lacks examples, constraints on kwargs, and error handling details. Given the tool's generic nature and lack of output schema, it is minimally 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all four named parameters and mentions kwargs for feature-specific properties, but does not clarify that kwargs should be a JSON string (schema type) nor provide constraints or examples.

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 clearly states it adds a geometry feature to a sequence and lists common feature types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like geometry_add_block or geometry_add_circle, which serve specific feature types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this generic tool versus the specific sibling tools for blocks, circles, etc. The description fails to clarify the appropriate context for selection.

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