create_arc

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. However, it doesn't disclose that this is a destructive operation or provide context on side effects. With destructiveHint=true and no additional behavioral details, the description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 two short sentences, bilingual and efficient. It front-loads the core purpose and parameters. However, it includes some redundancy ('radius plus from/to angles' restates the schema) and could be slightly more concise.

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 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain which parameters are relevant for arc creation, how the arc is positioned, or what the return value would be. The description assumes domain knowledge and leaves much to inference, especially since the schema includes many non-arc parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions radius and from/to angles, but the schema lists 17 parameters including many irrelevant to arcs (e.g., text, sides, width). It doesn't clarify which parameters are actually used for arcs nor add semantics beyond what the schema provides, and it fails to warn about irrelevant parameters.

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 it creates an arc spline with radius and from/to angles, and mentions use cases (sectors/bent profiles), distinguishing it from generic shape creators. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_circle or create_ellipse, relying on the tool name 'arc' for differentiation.

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 by mentioning 'good for sectors/bent profiles', but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_ngon or create_line. It lacks exclusion criteria or clear alternative references, though the specific parameters hint at specialized use.

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