addPolygon

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

Description discloses the return format and recommends saving entityId for later removal, adding value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether existing polygons are replaced, error handling, or required permissions. With minimal annotations, the description partially compensates but could be richer.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action, second gives the return and a key usage tip. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return structure and advises on entityId usage. However, it lacks context on expected behavior (e.g., what happens with invalid coordinates), error states, or how this fits among 30+ sibling tools. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'coordinate tuples', which is already detailed in the schema. No additional clarification or constraints beyond the schema are provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool draws a polygon from geographic coordinates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like addMarker, addPolyline, and addLabel. The resource (polygon area) and action (draw) are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description implies usage by mentioning 'keep entityId for removeEntity', giving a lifecycle hint, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives compared to sibling tools like addGeoJsonPrimitive or addGeoJsonLayer. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided.

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