generate_grid_survey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the mission is automatically saved to the account, which is a side effect beyond simply returning data. However, it does not mention any destructive or irreversible actions (e.g., overwriting existing missions), nor does it clarify if the mission is saved permanently or can be deleted later. A more complete disclosure of side effects would be warranted.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the primary action and method, the second explains the automatic save and return value, and the third provides a prerequisite call. There is no fluff or redundancy. The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, but 100% schema coverage), the description provides essential context beyond the schema: automatic saving, return format, and prerequisite tool call. It does not detail the return structure (which lacks output schema) or integration with other tools like check_airspace, but given the schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. One minor gap is the absence of info about the drone_profile_id parameter's purpose or default.

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 has 100% field-level descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that camera_model options can be listed via list_cameras, which is not in the schema description. It also summarizes the calculation logic ('optimal lawnmower-pattern waypoints based on camera, altitude, and overlap settings'), giving semantic meaning to the parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the polygon format or coordinate order beyond what the schema says.

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 'Generate', the resource 'grid/mapping survey mission', the input type 'polygon area', and the output 'returns the saved mission with ID and waypoint count'. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by specifying 'grid/mapping' and 'lawnmower-pattern', which is distinct from corridor, orbit, panorama, or spiral missions.

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 for when to use this tool: when a grid survey from a polygon is needed. It also advises to call list_cameras first to see available camera_model values, which helps avoid errors. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling survey tools (e.g., corridor vs grid), which would improve the score.

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