break_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the effect (opens a gap) and the same-point edge case, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens to the original entity, or any prerequisites. This is some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and includes a parenthetical for an important edge case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps: it does not explain the handle parameter, point interpretation, or entity type constraints. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description is still somewhat sparse for a tool with 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. It implies that x1,y1 and x2,y2 are the two points (via 'between two points' and the same-point note), but it does not explain the 'handle' parameter, coordinate system, or units. This is only partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Break' and resource 'entity', and clearly defines the action as between two points. It adds a useful parenthetical explaining the behavior (opens a gap; same point twice = split only), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trim_entity or explode_entity.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to break an entity at two points) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The parenthetical about same-point-split provides a specific usage nuance but no comparative guidance against similar tools.

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