coordinate_mutation_rewind

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 effectively describes key traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by '修正' and '调整'), specifies input/output formats (GeoJSON strings), notes dependencies (Turf.js and Node.js), and mentions error conditions (JavaScript execution failures, timeouts, data format errors). However, it lacks details on performance, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be relevant for an agent.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It starts with a clear purpose, but includes extensive sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes) that, while informative, could be more streamlined. Some redundancy exists (e.g., coordinate order mentioned multiple times). Every sentence adds value, but the organization could be more front-loaded for quick scanning by an agent.

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 (mutation of geometric data), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, return values, error handling, examples, and technical notes (dependencies, coordinate systems). The output schema handles return structure, so the description need not duplicate that, allowing focus on behavioral and semantic aspects.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'geojson' is explained with type, format, coordinate system, and an example; 'options' is described with type, optional fields ('reverse' and 'mutate'), defaults, and an example. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, covering all parameter aspects comprehensively.

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 purpose: '修正多边形的环方向，确保外环逆时针、内环顺时针' (corrects polygon ring orientation to ensure outer rings are counterclockwise and inner rings are clockwise). It specifies the exact operation (orientation correction) and target resource (polygons), and distinguishes from siblings like 'coordinate_mutation_flip' or 'coordinate_mutation_clean_coords' by focusing on ring orientation rather than coordinate transformation or cleaning.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for ensuring polygon ring orientation complies with GIS standards for correct area calculations. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'booleans_booleanPointInPolygon' for point-in-polygon checks or 'transformation_union' for combining polygons, which might be relevant in related workflows.

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