create_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses units (metres), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about side effects: whether the edge snaps/merges with existing geometry, what layer it lands on if 'layer' is omitted, what happens on duplicate edges, or what is returned. 'Create' implies mutation but the consequences are undisclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the unit convention following immediately. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the units but omits layer defaulting behavior, success/return semantics, and any interaction with existing geometry. Adequate but thin given nothing else carries that information.

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 67%: start and end are documented as '[x, y, z] point' while 'layer' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds real value with the metres unit statement, which the schema omits, but the unexplained layer parameter leaves a gap.

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 (create) and resource (line segment/edge) with the spatial qualifier 'between two 3D points'. The parenthetical '(edge)' maps the plain-language term to the domain term, and the resource itself distinguishes it from create_face, create_box, create_circle, etc. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource specificity is strong.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives (create_face, create_arc, create_polygon), and no prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the tool for drawing a single straight line.

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