eda_sys_math_union

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that union preserves outer-ring/hole ownership relationships, which is useful, but it doesn't state whether inputs are mutated, whether the operation is pure/destructive, what happens with overlapping holes, or anything about error cases. It does not contradict anything but leaves gaps.

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 short lines — signature, one-line Chinese purpose, one-line return note. No filler. It is compact and the return behavior is usefully appended. Slightly disorganized mixing signature/description/returns, but overall efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and opaque polygon input types, the description leaves the agent without guidance on how to construct polygon inputs or interpret the returned group beyond 'preserves outer ring and hole ownership.' For a math utility among many siblings, this 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 coverage is 100%, but the schema parameter descriptions are generic — 'args' is a JSON parameter array with empty item schema, so the description's signature line (polygon1: TSYS_MathPolygonInput, polygon2: TSYS_MathPolygonInput) is actually the primary source of parameter meaning. It adds the type information, but doesn't explain how to structure polygon points, coordinate format, or required fields of those inputs. The baseline 3 applies because the description does help but the nested input structure is still undocumented.

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 clear operation — computing the union of two polygons — with a specific resource (TSYS_MathPolygonInput types) and even describes what the result preserves (outer ring and hole ownership). It is distinct from sibling math operations like intersection, subtract, or xor, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 — when you need to merge two polygons — but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose union over intersection/subtract/xor. There is no mention of prerequisites, coordinate system considerations, or edge cases. The context is clear enough for a math operation, but exclusions are absent.

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