create_mep_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It covers the basic operation (creation, optional add) but lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, naming constraints, or error conditions. It is a minimal description without contradictions.

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 concise at approximately 50 words and well-organized with a one-line summary followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence is informative, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., system ID). It omits this, leaving a gap for the agent. It covers the core function but is incomplete for post-invocation understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section adds crucial meaning: system_type as 'mechanical' or 'piping', system_name as display name, and element_ids as optional list. This compensates for the schema gap, though it could provide more detail on name constraints.

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 clearly states 'Create a mechanical or piping system' and 'Groups ducts or pipes into a named system for organization and analysis.' The verb 'Create' and resource 'MEP system' are specific, and the mention of system_type distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_duct and create_pipe.

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 after individual duct/pipe elements are created, and it notes optional element addition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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