Suggest topology fixes (advisory)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real substance beyond them: candidates come back as ready-to-paste statements with rationale, walls are referenced by authored id, unique category, or absolute coordinates, and door candidates avoid furniture in the approach while window candidates do not. Those are non-obvious output and selection traits an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction ('as data; nothing is applied') and no filler sentences. The second sentence is a long four-clause enumeration, but every clause is a distinct diagnostic case rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully characterizes the return value: paste-ready door/window statements plus rationale, with the wall-naming variants spelled out. For a one-parameter advisory tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already says `source` is ArchLang source. The description adds only an indirect hint that the source must describe a plan's room graph; no syntax, size, or format guidance is offered.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: it suggests door/window statements for a plan's room graph, and states outright that 'nothing is applied'. That explicit advisory framing separates it from the mutating siblings repair/fix/link/complete without needing their schemas.

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 strong situational triggers (no path back, no entrance, bath only reachable through a bedroom, windowless bedroom) and tells the agent the follow-up flow: choose among candidates and insert them. It never names a specific sibling such as repair or fix as the alternative, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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