path_curveto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about prerequisites (must have an active path?), side effects (modifies current path state), error conditions, or what happens after curve addition. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with well-documented parameters in the schema.

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 path manipulation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader path creation workflow, doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active path), and provides no information about what constitutes success or failure. The context signals indicate this is a moderately complex tool that needs more guidance than provided.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

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 ('현재 패스에 베지어 곡선을 추가합니다' - 'Adds a Bezier curve to the current path') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like path_lineto or path_arcto by specifying the curve type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other path operations beyond the curve aspect.

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. There are multiple sibling path tools (path_lineto, path_arcto, path_close, etc.) but no indication of when a Bezier curve is appropriate versus other path segment types or how this integrates with the overall path creation workflow.

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