geometry-union

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (merge) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies inputs, handles errors, requires specific geometry types, or returns a new geometry. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Turkish. However, the language mismatch with the English tool name might reduce clarity, and it could be more front-loaded with key details.

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 geometry processing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the union operation entails, what happens with invalid inputs, or the format of the result. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, with the parameter 'geometries_wkt' well-documented as an array of WKT-formatted geometries. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Birden fazla geometriyi birleştir' (Merge multiple geometries) clearly states the action (merge/unify) and resource (geometries), but it's in Turkish while the tool name is in English, which may cause confusion. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'geometry-intersection' or 'geometry-convex-hull' that also operate on multiple geometries.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'geometry-intersection' (which finds overlaps) or 'geometry-convex-hull' (which creates an envelope). The description implies usage for merging geometries but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions.

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