serp_create_surface

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does reveal operation-specific behavior, such as 'closed profiles become solids' for extrude with cap, and defaults for distance and angle. However, it does not disclose whether the operation modifies source curves, what happens on failure, or what the output object is (e.g., its name or type). This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with a one-sentence purpose, then a bullet-style list of operations and their parameters. Every line adds value with no redundancy or padding.

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 (five operations, variable params) and the existence of an output schema (which can convey return value details), the description covers the core usage well: it specifies prerequisites (existing curves), operation parameters, and defaults. It falls short only on the unexplained `name` parameter and edge-case behaviors, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 compensates by detailing `operation` values and the structure of `params` for each operation, including defaults and example vector format (e.g., direction [x,y,z]). It also explains how `curves` should be provided (order, count). The only gap is the `name` parameter, which is likely the output name but is not explained.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a surface/solid from existing curves'. It specifies the resource (curves) and the result (surface/solid), and enumerates the supported operations (extrude, revolve, loft, planar, sweep), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like serp_create_curve (which creates curves) and serp_boolean (which operates on existing solids).

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 a clear context for use: creating surfaces/solids from existing curves. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can readily infer appropriate usage scenarios. No exclusions are mentioned, but none are needed for such a specialized tool.

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