create_arc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares global units (metres) and angle convention (degrees), which is real behavioral context beyond the sparse schema. However, it says nothing about reversibility, selection requirements, whether the arc is added to the active model, or what is returned — significant gaps for a creation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and kept to a few short sentences with no filler. Every sentence does work, though the units note partially overlaps the radius schema description.

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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it covers the core geometry inputs and units but not the remaining optional parameters or the mutation behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 78%, just below the high-coverage baseline, and the schema documents most individual parameters. The description adds a global units/degrees clarification but mentions only center, radius, and angles, omitting layer, material, normal, xaxis, and segments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create an arc in SketchUp.' An agent can distinguish this from sibling create_circle/create_polygon/create_face without ambiguity. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The second sentence describes inputs rather than context, leaving the agent to infer that this is a drawing primitive versus a component or group operation.

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