Create worksheets

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and non-open-world. The description adds real contextual value: the one-undo-step side effect, that each marker spawns a new 2D viewpoint seeded with the region's drawing, and the return shape. It stops short of covering rate limits or error/rollback 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and undo-safety note, then boundary requirements, then return shape and a follow-up call. Zero filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

Complete enough to invoke correctly: input shape, side effect, return keys, and the natural next step (open_view) are all present. No output schema exists, and the description handily compensates by naming the returned fields; only minor gaps around required project state or failure modes remain.

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 reported as 0%, but the nested schema in fact carries inline descriptions for nearly every field (box, polygon, name, layer, etc.), so the structured data does most of the work. The description adds only the high-level 'boundary polygon or box (m) + marker position' and names the returned keys, clarifying the two-parameter shape at a glance.

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?

States a specific verb (creates) and resource (worksheet markers), and distinguishes from the sibling it resembles by naming create_details explicitly. A reader knows exactly what element family this targets without opening the schema.

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?

Infers usage from the analogy to create_details and specifies boundary requirements (polygon or box + marker position), but does not state when to prefer this over create_details or other drawing-creation siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites like required active project.

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