create_reference_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a reference point is created. It does not mention coordinate frame assumptions, model_name semantics, timeout effects, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent uninformed about important runtime behavior.

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 a single, waste-free sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is terse enough that it sacrifices useful detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool appears conceptually simple, the description omits critical context such as coordinate semantics, model selection behavior, timeout meaning, and any constraints on when the operation can be performed. Without annotations or additional guidance, an agent may invoke it with incorrect assumptions.

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?

The description provides zero parameter-level guidance and schema coverage is 0%. The schema gives structural details (three-number array, optional timeout, model_name default), but the description does not clarify what the coordinates represent, the coordinate system, units, or how model_name selects the target model, so meaning beyond the schema is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('create'), a clear resource ('reference point'), and the scope ('in the assembly'), making the operation identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, but no sibling is dedicated to reference points, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 about when to use this tool instead of other create_* tools, nor are prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions mentioned. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and the general 'in the assembly' phrase.

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