spatial_create_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the '[changes spatial-service]' note, which signals a side effect on the spatial service. It also mentions the return value (pid), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether existing areas are overwritten or what happens on validation failure, but the dryRun/confirm parameters in the schema cover the safety mechanism.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and return value, then adds the '[changes spatial-service]' note. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. The placement of the side-effect note in brackets is a bit awkward but acceptable.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It tells the agent what the tool does and that it returns a pid, but it doesn't explain the dryRun/confirm safety flow (though the schema does), nor does it clarify the relationship to sibling tools like spatial_create_layer. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers the parameters, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description mentions WKT or GeoJSON as input formats, which maps to the 'wkt' and 'geojson' parameters, and notes the return pid. However, it doesn't explain the 'name', 'description', 'dryRun', or 'confirm' parameters beyond what the schema already says. The schema itself documents dryRun and confirm well, but the description adds little for the other parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a user area from WKT or GeoJSON' and notes it returns a pid usable in analyses. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like spatial_create_layer or spatial_add_layer. The '[changes spatial-service]' suffix adds a bit of context but is not a full differentiation.

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 implies usage by saying the pid is usable in analyses, which hints at when the result is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spatial_create_layer or spatial_add_layer, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The dryRun/confirm mechanism is documented in the schema, not the description, so the description itself provides only implied usage guidance.

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