Create splines

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

Annotations only cover the read/write and idempotency profile; the description adds substantial context beyond that: existing splines cannot be reshaped, elements are written to the ACTIVE window's database, a 3D window cannot hold 2D elements, and the batch return contract ('one failing item does not stop the others').

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?

A dense but well-structured paragraph; the core purpose is front-loaded and each clause carries distinct information (geometry mode, reshape constraint, window targeting, return contract). It is on the long side but nothing is clearly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('[{guid, type} | {error}] in input order') and partial-failure behavior. Combined with the window/story targeting rules and the reshape constraint, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that points are in meters/project coordinates, that closed splines need >= 3 points, and cross-references 'Style fields as create_lines' to explain the style parameter group.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Draws smooth 2D Bezier splines through the given points') with immediate distinction between the automatic natural spline and the explicit-handle mode. It also distinguishes itself from siblings create_lines/create_polylines by referencing 'Style fields as create_lines'.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for reshaping: 'Archicad cannot change the geometry of an existing spline — to reshape one, create a new spline and delete the old one (delete_elements); modify_elements can still change its pen, lineType, arrows'. It names the alternative tools and the conditions selecting them, plus the active-window constraint that governs where elements can go.

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