Create Point

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming a write operation. The description adds that it creates a 'point marker entity', which is slightly more specific than the title. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., return value, error behavior, drawing context) are disclosed. Since an output schema exists, the need for description is slightly reduced, but more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 point creation tool, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention the optional parameters (color, layer) or the output (e.g., created entity ID). Given the existence of an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description's brevity is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents x, y, color, and layer. The description reinforces x and y as coordinates but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a point marker entity at (x, y)' clearly states the action (create), the resource (point marker entity), and the key parameters (coordinates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_create_line or entity_create_circle.

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 for creating point markers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any conditions for use. No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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