make_partition

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 merely states the action without revealing whether the operation creates a new object, modifies existing ones, requires specific shape types, or has side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a geometric operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and a nontrivial operation, so the brevity is not entirely appropriate.

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 complexity of a partitioning operation and the lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the semantics of partition, the relationship between object_refs and tool_refs, or any behavioral constraints. The output schema may describe return values, but the operational context is missing entirely.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'objects' to object_refs and 'tools' to tool_refs, but says nothing about shape_type, result_name, or keep_non_limit_shapes. The agent cannot infer parameter meanings beyond their titles.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('GEOM partition'), and mentions the key inputs ('objects and optional tools'). However, it does not explain what a partition does or how it differs from sibling operations like boolean_operation or fuse_objects, so it could confuse an agent unfamiliar with GEOM.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cut_objects or common_objects. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent without decision support.

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