path_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool starts a path builder and references follow-up tools, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this creates a persistent object, what happens if used multiple times, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the expected workflow is. For a tool that likely creates mutable state, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and usage pattern. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by workflow context.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and workflow. However, for a tool that likely creates mutable graphical state as part of a sequence, the description should address more behavioral aspects like what happens to incomplete paths, whether multiple paths can exist simultaneously, or error conditions.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (startX and startY as coordinates). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained why these coordinates matter for path building.

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 ('새 패스 빌더를 시작합니다' - starts a new path builder) and the resource (path builder). It distinguishes from siblings like 'draw_path' by focusing on path construction rather than drawing a complete path. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'path_curveto' or 'path_lineto' which are mentioned as follow-up tools rather than alternatives.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: as the starting point for path construction, followed by path_lineto, path_curveto, etc., and ending with path_finish. It implicitly suggests this is part of a sequence but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'draw_path' for simpler paths.

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