ap_paint_stroke_world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses several important traits: the stroke is closed, uses world space, is camera-independent, ArmorPaint is Z-up, and ap_get_main_object can provide object bounds. It does not mention prerequisites like an active layer or material, but the core behavioral context is well covered.

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?

Two sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The key scoping fact (WORLD space, closed, camera-independent) is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds needed ArmorPaint-specific context about the coordinate system.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the stroke path space, the closure behavior, the camera-independence rationale, the Z-up convention, and a helper tool for bounds. The main gap is not stating whether an active object/layer/material must already be selected, but this is minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The schema already covers the points array at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the coordinate system ('ArmorPaint's world is Z-up') and pointing to ap_get_main_object for object bounds, which helps the agent interpret the parameter values correctly.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Paint a stroke in WORLD space and close it') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling ap_paint_stroke by emphasizing camera independence. This is enough for an agent to know exactly what this tool does and why it differs.

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?

It clearly indicates when this tool is preferred: 'reliable choice for scripted painting' because it is camera-independent. It does not explicitly name ap_paint_stroke as the alternative for camera-space strokes, but the world-space contrast makes the usage context clear.

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