eudr_slice_parcel

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful output traits (WGS84, 6-decimal precision, closed rings) but says nothing about whether the original plot is mutated or preserved, idempotency, failure modes, or permissions.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, the input condition, and the output guarantee. Every clause earns its place, though the stacked technical qualifiers make it slightly hard to scan.

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 output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the load; it covers the output geometry format but omits what happens to the source plot, behavior when the parcel is already under 4.0 ha, and any idempotency or persistence semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the six parameters are already documented. The description adds the compliance rationale behind the size thresholds, but does not explain how area_hectares interacts with the >4.0 ha trigger or how coordinates are interpreted.

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?

Specific verb (auto-subdivides) plus resource (oversized smallholder agricultural parcels) with explicit thresholds (>4.0 ha in, <4.0 ha out). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like eudr_verify_plot or eudr_render_satellite_map.

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 condition that triggers use is explicit: parcels exceeding 4.0 ha need slicing to satisfy EUDR Article 9 smallholder rules. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given (e.g. what to do for already-compliant parcels).

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