create_arc

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 does add useful geometric behavior (counter-clockwise, degrees, angle origin), but it does not disclose side effects on the drawing, whether the arc is added to the current level, or how fit_view influences the result. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence that is efficiently front-loaded with the most essential information: action, direction, and angle convention. There is no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the core operation.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent would have to guess the coordinate format for center, units for radius, the meaning of a null layer, and the effect of fit_view. The output schema may help with return values, but not with input decisions.

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 for the six parameters. It only clarifies start_angle and end_angle semantics; center, radius, layer, and fit_view are left entirely to inference from names and schema types. This does not provide enough parameter meaning for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 names a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('arc'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying counter-clockwise direction and the angular reference (0 = +x axis). This clearly identifies what the tool does and separates it from create_circle or create_line.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_circle or create_polyline, nor any mention of prerequisites like an active layer or open document. The description states the operation but never addresses when it is appropriate.

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