eda_sys_math_subtract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return type (TSYS_MathPolygonGroup) and the key output behavior that outer-ring/hole ownership is preserved, which is not visible from the schema. It also characterizes the tool as a calculation rather than a mutation.

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?

Three compact lines: signature, operation, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes, and the most important semantic detail (polygon1 - polygon2) is front-loaded.

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 pure math utility with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, argument order, and basic return semantics. It is incomplete on the structure of TSYS_MathPolygonInput/TSYS_MathPolygonGroup and on edge cases such as empty results, which an agent would need to reliably construct a valid call.

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 schema only exposes a generic args array, so the description adds real value by giving the official signature with named, ordered parameters polygon1 and polygon2. However, TSYS_MathPolygonInput is never explained, and the description does not describe how polygon objects should be structured, so an agent still has to infer the polygon representation.

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 explicitly names the operation (sys_Math.subtract), the resource (two polygons), and the formula polygon1 - polygon2. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling set operations such as union, intersection, and xor even without opening schemas.

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 Chinese sentence '计算两个多边形的差集（polygon1 - polygon2）' gives a clear semantic context for when to invoke this tool: when the remaining area of polygon1 after removing polygon2 is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is concrete enough that an agent can route correctly.

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