create_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Create Curve .tres.' without revealing whether it overwrites existing files, what file format specifics are involved, or any side effects. The agent is left in the dark about critical behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A sparse sentence like 'Create Curve .tres.' fails to provide enough informative content, similar to the 'Process' example that scored low.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the relationship between points and the resulting curve, the bake resolution purpose, or any creation behavior. The description is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already provides basic meaning for 'path', 'points', and 'bake_resolution'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions themselves are terse but present, warranting the baseline score.

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 'Create Curve .tres.' names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Curve .tres'), which is clear enough to differentiate it from generic create_resource and other creatable types. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from write_path_curve or read_curve siblings, and could be more descriptive about what a Curve resource entails.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_resource or write_resource. There is no context, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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