geometry_add_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions adding a feature and returning info, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether the geometry is built or needs rebuilding), permissions, or constraints. Behavioral traits are partially disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear action sentence, a list of feature types, and an 'Args' section. It is concise but informative, with no redundant information. Front-loaded with the main 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters and returns but lacks examples and behavioral details. Familiar users might find it sufficient, but novices may need more context.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the purpose of each parameter (feature_type, geometry_name, etc.) and mentions kwargs as feature-specific properties. However, it does not provide examples or format for kwargs, nor allowed values for feature_type beyond the list. Adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 a geometry feature to a geometry sequence' and lists common feature types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from specific geometry_add_* tools (e.g., geometry_add_block).

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 lists feature types implying when to use this tool, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this generic version versus the specific shape tools (siblings). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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