curve_create_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the creation action and gives parameter names, but lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether it overrides existing objects, adds to active collection, or requires specific modes). This is insufficient for full 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a bullet-style parameter list. No redundant information, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the creation process, return value, and behavior (e.g., object added to scene). It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details like coordinate system or result feedback. For a basic creation tool in a complex environment, it is moderately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief labels for each parameter (name, length, points, location), adding basic context beyond schema defaults. However, it omits units for length, coordinate format for location, and does not explain how points affect the path shape. The additional value is modest.

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 creates a NURBS path and explicitly mentions two common use cases (follow-path animations and hair guides), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like curve_create_bezier or curve_create_circle.

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 context on when to use this tool (for follow-path animations and hair guides), which implies suitable scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the many curve-related siblings.

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