poker_proposeBody

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic backup' which suggests some safety mechanism, but doesn't explain what 'propose' means operationally (is this a draft creation? does it require approval?), what permissions are needed, whether this is a read or write operation, or what happens on success/failure. For a complex 25-parameter tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that states the core function. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. There's no wasted text, but it might benefit from slightly more context given the 25 parameters and lack of annotations.

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?

For a complex 25-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after proposal, what the 'automatic backup' entails, what domain this operates in (CAD? simulation?), or what the expected outcomes are. The description fails to provide adequate context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter documentation including coordinate formats and type-specific usage. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states the tool 'proposes a new 3D solid (with automatic backup)', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It doesn't clearly distinguish what makes this different from sibling tools like 'poker_updateBody' or 'poker_deleteBody', nor does it specify what kind of 3D solid creation system this is for. The purpose is understandable but vague about the domain context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'poker_updateBody' and 'poker_deleteBody' available, there's no indication whether this is for initial creation versus modification, or what prerequisites might be needed. The mention of 'automatic backup' hints at a safety feature but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate.

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