calculate_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares mutation and lists supported geometry properties, but does not clarify if the field is created automatically or if values are overwritten. Missing details like prerequisites or field creation behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads the core purpose, second adds usage context and mutation warning. Excellent conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive input schema descriptions, the tool description covers the essentials: purpose, usage, and mutation. Could mention the lack of return value but is adequate for a mutation tool.

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 includes full descriptions for each property, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing geometry property options and mentioning ArcPy, but does not explain unit parameters or path constraints beyond what schema already provides.

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 tool calculates geometry properties (area, length, perimeter, centroid, point coordinates) into an attribute field using ArcPy. It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_field and add_xy_coordinates by specifying the exact geometry calculations.

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 explicit use cases (reporting, QA/QC, labeling, downstream analysis) and mentions mutation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives like calculate_field for non-geometry calculations.

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