wizard_archviz_interior

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors itself. It does state that rendering is CPU-heavy and warns to keep render=False for scene building, and it enumerates all the elements the tool sets up. However, it fails to mention whether the tool creates a new scene, overwrites existing objects, or integrates with the current scene. This side-effect information is important for a tool that builds an entire environment and is not disclosed.

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 a clear summary sentence, followed by a compact 'Sets up' line that gives behavioral scope, then a structured Args list. Every line contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults. The Arg list is necessary given the number of parameters. It is appropriately sized, though slightly longer than strictly needed.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and provides important render guidance. It lacks disclosure about scene integration (new vs. current scene), which is a notable gap, but otherwise it gives enough for an agent to make a reasonable call. The missing side-effect information prevents a perfect score.

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 schema has 0% description coverageaine, so the description must explain every parameter. It does: room dimensions in meters, wall/floor colors as [R,G,B] arrays, style with the valid enum values, render as a CPU-heavy flag, samples with a suggested preview range (16-32), and output_path purpose. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete architectural interior room in one call.' The subsequent list of what it sets up (walls, floor, ceiling, windows, door, furniture, etc.) clearly distinguishes it from sibling wizards like wizard_quick_scene or wizard_environment, which target broader or different scene types. An agent can accurately infer the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 implies usage context: it is a one-call, full-interior creation tool, and the render parameter guidance ('Keep False for scene building') advises when to avoid heavy compute. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling wizards (e.g., wizard_quick_scene, wizard_environment) or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The when-to-use is implied rather than stated.

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