femm_add_arcs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: arc direction (counter-clockwise), the valid angle range (0 < angle <= 180), and the side effect that end nodes are created as needed. It omits error handling, whether arcs join to existing geometry, and return 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?

Single dense sentence that front-loads the tuple format before the edge-case constraints, with each parenthetical earning its place. It is slightly run-on but well organized and free of filler.

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 geometry-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the input format, direction, constraints, and side effect adequately. Missing only the meaning of the session parameter and any error/return expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it thoroughly explains the complex `arcs` tuple (x1,y1,x2,y2,angle_deg,maxseg_deg) including the meaning and tuning of maxseg_deg. The `session` parameter is left completely unexplained, which is the only gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (Add) and resource (arcs) and even specifies the tuple layout, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like femm_add_segments or femm_add_polyline, so the distinction is only implicit in the resource name.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose arcs over segments, polylines, or circles, and offers no prerequisites. The 'air gaps want <= 1' note is a parameter hint, not usage routing.

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