create_edge

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It only restates the function without revealing behavioral traits such as whether the edge is added to the current model, if it checks for duplicates, or if it requires a specific drawing context. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 that conveys the essential purpose without wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for a simple tool.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core intent but omits details about default behavior (e.g., layer default), return value, and side effects. Given the complexity, more context would improve completeness.

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 schema already describes start and end with '[x, y, z]' format, and the description offers no additional meaning. The 'layer' parameter lacks a description in both schema and description. With 67% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing layer info or to provide any semantic enrichment.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'edge' (line segment), and specifies it operates between two 3D points. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_arc, create_box, etc., which create different shapes.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_face, create_polygon). There is no mentioning of prerequisites, context, or limitations, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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