Create GeoJSON / OSM city visualization

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it builds a Script SOP, a Geometry COMP, and a camera+light Render TOP; describes projection and extrusion logic; and includes a licensing note. It stops short of describing exact network side effects (e.g., whether parent_path is overwritten), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense sentence that efficiently packs the essential pipeline stages, followed by a short license note. It is not overly verbose, though it could be split into clearer sentences. All content is relevant and earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the created network structure (Script SOP, Geometry COMP, Render TOP) and the data transformation approach. It omits explicit mention of return values (none expected) but covers the tool's overall functionality and important legal context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'extrude' and 'default_height' by explaining the extrusion of ribbon walls using the 'height' property, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Turn') and a concrete resource ('GeoJSON') into a 3D city visualization. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic 'create_visualization' or 'create_3d_scene' tools by detailing the exact pipeline (Script SOP, Geometry COMP, Render TOP) and supported feature types (Point/LineString/Polygon/Multi*).

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 states clear context: it's for GeoJSON data, especially OSM-derived city data. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the phrase 'Turn GeoJSON ... into a 3D city visualization' makes the intended use obvious. The note about ODbL licensing also guides responsible use.

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