create_line

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the created spline remains editable, point count affects curve fidelity, and a closed spline can be capped into a surface. Annotations already signal readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by closure, fidelity, and related-tool notes. The bilingual repetition adds length but is justified for the tool's audience, and every distinct piece of information earns its place.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, the creation workflow, and follow-up operations via spline_set_points/spline_get_points. The main omission is an explicit statement of the returned object handle or name, but the optional-name schema and sibling references make invocation reasonably clear.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value: points are in world space, more points produce a finer curve, and closure enables capping. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Line spline from an array of world-space points.' It also distinguishes this from the many primitive-creation siblings by naming the subsequent spline editing/reading tools and noting that closed splines can be capped into surfaces.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool when you need a point-defined Line spline, adjust fidelity by adding points, and optionally close it. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name creation alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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