path_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful behavior per operation: creating Curve2D/Curve3D resources, scaffolding nodes with PathFollow children, sampling baked positions, and generating spline shapes. However, it does not disclose key behaviors such as whether save_path writes resources to disk, whether scaffold_path mutates the current scene tree, what prerequisites sample_baked_points has (e.g., baking enabled), or what errors or responses occur.

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 short umbrella statement followed by scannable bullet entries for each operation. Each bullet includes a signature and a one-line description, and the final canonical call-shape note is useful and non-redundant. There is minimal wasted text for a tool with five operations.

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 high complexity of five operations, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description provides a reasonable but incomplete foundation. It covers operation names, parameter names, and basic intent, but omits usage context, file-save behavior, prerequisites, and examples. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but gaps remain around how the abstract params object maps to each operation's signature.

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 for the generic params object. It does so effectively by listing each operation's signature with parameter names, defaults, and some semantic hints, such as generate_spline's supported shapes (circle, sine, spiral, rect, s_curve). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. Still, some parameters like save_path and points lack explicit type/format semantics, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 identifies the tool as handling Path2D/Path3D curves, splines, and patrol routes, and lists five specific operations with concrete verbs and resources (create_curve_2d, create_curve_3d, scaffold_path, sample_baked_points, generate_spline). It is not a tautology and gives enough detail to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potentially overlapping siblings like curve_manage or geometry_manage.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no decision criteria. Each operation is named and briefly described, but there is no statement like 'use this for path/curve creation rather than X' or 'do not use for navigation meshes'. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and operation names.

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