simplify_polygon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies a polygon ('write it back') but does not specify what resource is changed, whether the operation is destructive, or whether it requires a selected polygon node. This lack of side-effect detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no extra words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized and never wastes the reader's attention.

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?

The tool is not self-contained: it takes only 'points' as input but claims to 'write it back', implying an existing polygon resource, yet no identifier or selection mechanism is documented. With no output schema and no additional context, the agent cannot reliably infer how to apply this 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (points as [x,y] array, tolerance with default and aggressiveness hint). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (simplify), the resource (polygon), and the method (Douglas-Peucker). It also mentions the side effect (write it back), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool like set_shape_points or read_collision_polygon.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no mention of editor selection or how the target polygon is identified, leaving the agent without clear invocation context.

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