create_polygon_section

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

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It explains loop key semantics ('main' for outer, 'sub1'... for hollow loops), which goes beyond the schema, but it does not disclose behavior like overwriting existing sections, coordinate conventions, or validation constraints.

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 compact and well-organized with a brief summary followed by parameter details and an example. The bilingual text adds slight redundancy but does not harm usability.

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 core parameters and loop structure are covered, but there is no output schema and no mention of constraints like whether loops must be closed, minimum point count, or coordinate system context. The example helps, but an agent still lacks some practical details for correct invocation.

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, and it does. It explains each parameter, specifies the loop dictionary structure with 'main' and 'sub' keys, and provides a concrete example using [y,z] coordinate pairs.

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?

Description states a specific action ('create a custom polygon cross-section') with the resource clearly identified. It is distinct from generic section tools like create_section, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_section, create_section_from_properties, or create_tapered_section. The reader must infer that this is for arbitrary polygon shapes.

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