add_curve_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the curve must exist (implied mutation, adds state) and gives the return shape ('Dict with curve name and new point count'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the point is appended, inserted, or placed at an index, what happens if curve_name doesn't exist, or what units/coordinate space 'location' uses.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then Args/Returns structure. No wasted prose. Slightly verbose in the Returns block for information already covered by the output schema, but efficient overall.

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 output schema exists, so Returns is redundant but harmless. With no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an enum the description only partially reflects, the definition is adequate for a 3-param mutation but leaves gaps: no prerequisites (curve must exist, edit mode?), no error behavior, and an incomplete enum list that could mislead.

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 does: curve_name ('Name of the curve object to add a point to'), location ('3D location for the new point as (x, y, z)'), and handle_type explains the enum intent ('Handle type - AUTO, VECTOR, ALIGNED, or FREE'). The enum lists 4 of the 7 schema values (AUTOMATIC, FREE_ALIGN, TOGGLE_FREE_ALIGN omitted), a small mismatch, but the parameters are otherwise well documented.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Add a control point to an existing curve.' Distinguishes from siblings like create_curve (creates the curve) and set_handle_type (modifies existing handles). An agent can immediately identify the operation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no named alternatives. The sibling set includes several curve tools (set_handle_type, subdivide_curve, smooth_curve, toggle_cyclic) and the description offers no routing logic. What remains is the constraint that the curve must already exist, which is implied rather than stated as a prerequisite.

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