set_geometry

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

The word 'Redefine' implies a destructive or overwriting behavior, and the parameter mapping implies that related parameters should be supplied together. The exclusion of blocks is useful boundary information. However, the description does not disclose assumptions such as the object must already exist, whether omitted properties are reset, units, or coordinate conventions. With zero annotations, this is partial transparency but not misleading.

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?

Three short sentences, each providing distinct information: the general action, the geometry-to-parameter mapping, and the exclusion. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler 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?

The description is sufficient for a rough understanding, but not complete for correct invocation: it does not explain whether points is a list of coordinate pairs, whether the shape's previous parameters are discarded, what happens if no geometry-specific parameters are set, or how errors are reported. An output schema exists, which may cover return values, but invocation still carries ambiguity.

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 carries the full semantic burden. It does map parameters to geometry types: 'points (+closed)' for polyline, 'x, y, width, height' for rectangle, and 'center, radius (+start_angle and end_angle for an arc)' for circle/arc. It does not specify the format of 'points' or 'center' (e.g., [x,y] pairs), but it goes far beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Redefine') and resource ('an object's geometry'), then enumerates geometry types and their parameters. It also states the exclusion 'Not for blocks,' which distinguishes it from broader setting tools. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 context by mapping shape types to parameter sets, and it gives one explicit exclusion ('Not for blocks'). However, it does not name alternatives or say when to prefer this over sibling tools like set_properties, move_object, or get_object_geometry, nor does it clarify whether the geometry replacement is a full redraw. Guidance exists but is incomplete.

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