add_curve_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the return value (dict with curve name and point count) but fails to disclose crucial traits such as validation of location, effect on existing points, undo behavior, or permission requirements.

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 a single paragraph with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It is concise with no superfluous words, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signals), the description need not detail return values. However, it omits prerequisites (curve must exist prior to calling) and potential side effects (e.g., modification of the curve object). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: location is described as '3D location for the new point as (x, y, z)' and handle_type lists the options (AUTO, VECTOR, ALIGNED, FREE). This compensates for the barren schema, though defaults from the schema are not reiterated.

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 'Add a control point to an existing curve,' specifying the verb 'add' and the resource 'control point' on a curve. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_curve' (create new) and 'set_curve_property' (modify existing properties).

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 parameter details but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (curve must exist) or when not to use (e.g., for modifying existing points, use set_handle_type). Usage is implied but not articulated.

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