create_features

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

Discloses key behaviors: overwriting existing outputs, automatic attribute field creation, geometry type inference, required WGS84 coordinate system, and return value. With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Organized with front-loaded purpose, each sentence adds value. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no redundant text.

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 4 parameters, output schema availability, and no annotations, the description covers input/output, parameter usage, behavioral details, and return value. Complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to three of four parameters: 'geojson' (implied GeoJSON string), 'output_path' (format inference), and 'geometry_type' (when to set). However, 'timeout_seconds' is not explained, though it's a common default parameter. Almost fully compensates.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates vector data from GeoJSON, specifies output format options (shapefile vs geodatabase feature class), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'export_features' by emphasizing creation from scratch with GeoJSON input.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('fastest way to MAKE data from scratch'), explains output format selection via 'output_path', and gives context for CRS transformation using a sibling tool. Also clarifies when to set 'geometry_type' parameter.

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