spatial_plan_support_surface_anchors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is 'local/read-only', works on 'dry-run placement steps', and operates 'before mutation', which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether 'updates dry-run placement steps' means it returns a modified plan, writes to internal state, or only validates positions, and it omits any behavior around limits, defaults, or output contents.

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 the core purpose, then gives input context and a concrete example. The KB reference is a minor addition but not wasteful. It is reasonably sized for the tool's complexity, though the example only shows two parameters and omits the other seven schema properties.

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?

For a specialized planner with no annotations, 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description gives enough orientation to attempt a call but not enough to use it confidently. It covers input types and high-level behavior but lacks parameter-level detail, pipeline ordering, and clarity on the dry-run update semantics. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the remaining gaps keep this from being complete.

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. It adds meaning for composition_plan_json (interior composition, reconstruction, generated-asset binding, etc.), room_analysis_json (optional spatial_analyze_room output), and hints at anchor_floor/anchor_walls/anchor_horizontal_supports via 'counters, tables, shelves, walls, or floors'. But it leaves limit and include_updated_plan unexplained, and provides no detail on how the boolean toggles interact or what 'dry-run placement steps' means for the output.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: 'Plan floor, support-surface, and wall anchors for a composition.' The description further clarifies the consumed inputs and the goal of aligning props to surfaces. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling spatial planning tools such as spatial_plan_interior_prop_program or spatial_plan_room_bounds_designation.

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 states when this tool is appropriate: it is a local/read-only planner that updates dry-run placement steps before mutation, and it can consume several specific input types plus optional spatial_analyze_room output. This gives clear context for selection. It does not name exclusions or explicitly route to an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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