geometry-set_curve

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set' which implies mutation, but doesn't describe side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing data. No detail on how the tool modifies geometry, making it impossible for the agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 only one line and severely under-specified. It's not concisely informative—it's simply too short to convey necessary information. Every hint of value is missing, so this is not good conciseness but lack of content.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage. The description 'Set curve-like geometry data fields' provides almost no context for how to invoke the tool correctly. It is wholly inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions none of the nine parameters (extrude, fill_mode, dimensions, bevel_depth, etc.). The schema titles provide some hints but the description adds no additional meaning or usage context.

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 'Set curve-like geometry data fields' uses a clear verb and resource but is extremely vague. It doesn't specify which curve properties are affected or differentiate from sibling tools like geometry-set_bezier_spline, which is more specific. The generic 'curve-like' phrasing fails to convey the tool's exact scope.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description offers zero context for the agent to decide 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.