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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, return values, coordinate system expectations, or how the corridor entity is treated. For a creation tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 concise phrase, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters), it may be slightly too terse, though this does not detract from its structural clarity.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is not complete enough to guide an agent. It does not explain the meaning of positions (latitude/longitude/height), the purpose of extrudedHeight, or any rendering behavior. The tool's context is largely undefined.

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?

The description does not explain any parameters, while schema description coverage is only 33% (width and material have descriptions). It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters like positions, extrudedHeight, id, or name, nor does it clarify the structure of positions beyond what the schema already shows.

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 '添加走廊（带宽度的路径）' clearly states the tool adds a corridor, defined as a path with width. This distinguishes it from siblings like addPolyline (a path without width) and addWall, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or reference sibling tools. The only implicit hint is 'path with width,' but no direct comparison or usage context is given.

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