addPolygon

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

The description explicitly states the return shape { success, data: { entityId }, message? } and instructs the agent to keep entityId for removeEntity, adding valuable lifecycle behavior beyond the annotations. Annotations are all false and don't contradict the description, though it omits side effects like render persistence or permission requirements.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence plus a compact return note. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an 8-parameter tool, the description is short but compensates with a fully documented schema, explicit output contract, and entity lifecycle hint. The main missing contextual element is usage comparison, but the essential invocation details are covered.

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 100% and each parameter already has detailed descriptions including defaults and ranges. The description only adds the context of 'geographic coordinate tuples', which is marginal, so the schema carries the semantic burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Draw' and resource 'polygon area' from geographic coordinate tuples, clearly distinct from sibling tools like addPolyline or addMarker. The action is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use addPolygon versus alternatives like addGeoJsonLayer or addPolyline. It lacks preconditions, exclusions, or context about preferred use cases, so the agent receives no decision support.

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