offset_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the point-direction rule and 'CAD does the math' but fails to disclose whether the offset creates a new entity or modifies the existing one, nor does it mention error conditions or side effects. This is a significant gap for a geometry operation.

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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose and the second adds a useful behavioral hint. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too terse for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations. It omits the meaning of 'handle', whether the original curve is retained, and any sign/unit conventions for distance. The minimal context leaves critical operational details undefined.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions distance and tow_x/toward_y, which clarifies their roles, but it does not explain the 'handle' parameter at all, nor any constraints on distance (e.g., sign, units). The parameter meaning is only partially conveyed.

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 the action (offset), the resource (curve), and the method (by distance toward a point). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move, copy, rotate, and trim, which all have different core operations.

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 usage for offsetting a curve but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as copy_entity or trim_entity. It offers no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and operation.

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