create_curve

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 signals a write operation via 'Create' but says nothing about side effects: which collection the curve lands in, whether it becomes the active/selected object, or whether any existing state is touched. The Args/Returns text is documentation of structure, not behavioral traits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the docstring-style Args/Returns block is compact. The Returns section is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is bloated.

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?

With an output schema present, the return description is not strictly needed, and parameters are covered by the description. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits the context an agent needs to call it correctly — target collection, mode requirements, and post-creation selection state.

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 must compensate. It names all three parameters and gives meaning for each (type enum choices, optional name, location as x/y/z), which adds real value over the bare schema. It stops short of edge cases such as whether location is absolute or relative to the cursor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new curve object'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, in a sibling set that includes create_object, create_text, and convert_curve_to_mesh, the description does nothing to distinguish when a curve rather than a generic object is wanted.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. object mode vs edit mode, required scene/collection), and no routing to alternatives such as create_object or convert_curve_to_mesh. The agent must infer all selection logic.

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