eda_sys_math_translate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the result is an array of translated discrete points. It does not clarify whether the input polygon is mutated, what coordinate units apply, or how the output point ordering relates to the input.

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 compact and front-loaded with the function signature, followed by a short semantic label and return note. There is minor redundancy between the signature return type and the returns line, but no unnecessary filler.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and only a terse signature leave significant gaps: input polygon structure, coordinate system/units, side-effect behavior, and usage context. An agent would have to infer too much to invoke this tool confidently.

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 signature adds parameter names, order, and types beyond the generic args array schema, which helps construct the call. However, it does not explain TSYS_MathPolygonInput, the meaning/units of dx and dy, or reconcile the schema's zero required fields with the seemingly mandatory polygon, dx, and dy.

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 operation ('translate'), the resource ('polygon'), and the transformation parameters (dx, dy), with a return type of point array. This clearly distinguishes it from math siblings like rotate, scale, or calculate_area.

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 intended use is implied by the signature and the Chinese '平移多边形' (translate polygon), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, no explicit when-to-use, preconditions, or alternatives such as rotate/scale are provided.

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