Add Hatch Boundary

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: edge validation occurs before any write, and malformed input refuses entirely instead of leaving a half-built path. This is significant because it informs the agent that the operation is atomic in terms of validation, which is critical for error handling. The annotation only indicates non-destructive, but the description adds valuable detail about failure modes and pre-validation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence provides necessary rationale and validation behavior without excess. Every word earns its place, and the structure is logical: what it does, then why it's designed that way.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (typed edges with multiple formats), the description covers the essential reasoning and safety behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The description could have explicitly mentioned that the edges array is required and the handle refers to an existing HATCH, but the schema handles that. Overall, it's complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('handle' and 'edges'). The description adds meaning by explaining why 'edges' must be typed (to preserve curves) and how validation works. This exceeds the baseline 3 by providing context beyond the raw types, though it doesn't detail every edge subfield (which the schema covers).

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 clearly states 'Add one boundary path built from typed edges', specifying a specific verb (add) and resource (hatch boundary). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'boundary_from_entities' by emphasizing 'typed edges', and provides rationale for why typed edges are used, which clarifies the tool's unique purpose.

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 explains that typed edges are necessary because a boundary that only accepts vertex lists would silently straighten curves, implying when this tool is appropriate (when curves need to be preserved). It doesn't explicitly state when to use alternative boundary tools, but the context is clear enough for distinguishing from similar tools.

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