Create Revision Cloud

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by explaining that a revision cloud is a polyline with arcs and discloses a refusal condition when segment_length exceeds the shortest edge, which prevents a misleading plain-polyline result. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not mention other side effects like layer handling or undo 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single, high-value edge case. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the essential concept, the key constraint, and the tool's non-destructive nature (via annotations). It is complete enough for a 4-parameter create tool, though it could theoretically mention how the cloud is integrated into the current drawing or any prerequisites (e.g., active drawing), but these are standard and implied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for segment_length by linking it to the shortest edge and explaining that too long a value gets refused—a semantic constraint not present in the schema. The other parameters are already well described in the schema, so no further compensation is needed.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Draw a revision cloud' and immediately defines its unique nature as a polyline where every segment carries an arc. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_create_polyline or entity_create_arc, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool (whenever a revision cloud is needed) and provides a critical constraint on segment_length, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is clear enough from the purpose, but no explicit guidance on alternatives or preconditions is given.

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