spatial_plan_layout_preflight_corrections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it declares the tool 'local/read-only' and 'deterministically repairs,' disclosing side-effect profile and predictability. It does not cover failure/error behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read-only planner the safety profile is adequately 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 one-line summary, followed by a short behavior paragraph and a concrete call example, so most sentences earn their place. The KB reference is a minor detour but adds useful context for world-building best practices.

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 example shows a minimal valid call with just the two required params, and defaults cover the rest, so an agent can invoke correctly. However, the six optional tuning parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and with no annotations, behavior like output structure and limits is left entirely to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the two required parameters via the call example. The six optional parameters (limit, pairwise_padding, min_walkway_width, boundary_margin_cm, correction_step_cm, include_updated_plan) are never explained beyond self-descriptive names, leaving units and effects ambiguous (e.g., what limit counts, what correction_step_cm steps).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Plan dry-run corrections from an interior layout preflight' and 'deterministically repairs fixable bounds, overlap, and circulation findings.' It is clearly distinguished from spatial-planning siblings (e.g., spatial_plan_asset_scale_corrections is scale-only, spatial_plan_interior_composition composes) by naming its operand, the spatial_preflight_interior_layout output.

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?

Provides clear context: it consumes a composition plus spatial_preflight_interior_layout output, is local/read-only, and handles only fixable bounds/overlap/circulation findings. It implies when not to use it by stating it 'routes support/semantic issues to the right follow-up tools,' but it never names those alternatives, so there are no explicit when-not/alternative conditions.

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