Run GeoGebra commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does fairly well: it discloses the redefinition semantics ('Assigning to an existing name REDEFINES that object and its dependents update'), execution ordering, and the failure surface (warnings for undefined objects and names not created, plus cause hints). It does not state prerequisites such as whether a figure/session must already be open or whether destructive removal via Delete(P) is reversible.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then semantics, then return shape; every element earns its place. The inline example list is long but justified for a free-form command string parameter, though it makes the middle of the description dense.

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 no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by explaining the per-command return fields (ok, created/removed objects, warnings, failure hints). Remaining gaps are prerequisites (active figure, permissions) rather than return-value omissions.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces ordering semantics for 'commands' and the dependency rationale behind stopping early, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema (the maxItems=300 limit, for instance, appears only in the schema).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run GeoGebra commands on the live figure, in order') and backs it with concrete command examples ('A = (-1, 6)', 'Midpoint(B, C)', 'SetVisibleInView(h, 1, false)'). The command-batch framing is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ggb_evaluate, ggb_set_style, and ggb_delete, which operate on a single object or expression.

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?

Usage is only implied: the examples and the phrase 'in order' suggest this is for scripted multi-step figure construction or edits. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when a sibling (ggb_evaluate, ggb_set_style, ggb_delete) would be the better choice.

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