create_circle

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

The annotation destructiveHint: true directly contradicts the description's 'create' semantics, which implies an additive, non-destructive operation. The description does not disclose any destructive side effects (e.g., overwriting existing shapes). This is a clear annotation contradiction that leaves the agent confused about tool effects.

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 short bilingual sentences, packed with the key information (action, key parameter, common uses). No filler; well front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 a 17-parameter schema with 0 required fields, the description is far too sparse. It does not tell the agent which parameters are valid for a circle vs. other shapes, or that most listed parameters are likely ignored. Combined with the destructiveHint contradiction, this leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema covers all 17 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'radius sizes it', adding no new meaning beyond the schema's existing '半径. | Radius.' entry. It also fails to clarify that most schema parameters (e.g., text, sides, width) are irrelevant to a circle, which could mislead an agent into passing them.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a circle spline' and adds a typical use case ('tyres/hole outlines'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like create_rectangle or create_ellipse at a glance.

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?

Clear context: creating a circle spline, with common applications noted. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., 'use create_ellipse for elliptical shapes') or mention alternatives, though the sibling list makes that inferable.

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