unreal_layout_preview

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

The annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: units are centimeters, yaw rotates around the origin, each recipe generates at most 20 Cube operations, and origin conventions differ by layout kind. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Four short sentences deliver the core behavior, safety profile, units, rotation behavior, operation limit, origin conventions, and next workflow step. Everything earns its place and the most important information 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 the complexity of the nested layout schema, the description covers the essential shared semantics precisely: units, origin, yaw, preview safety, operation limits, and the follow-up apply step. With output schema present, the missing return-value details are not a gap. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and route the result correctly.

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 no top-level per-property descriptions, so the description compensates by adding global meaning: centimeters, yaw pivot behavior, operation caps, and per-kind origin semantics. Individual fields like wall_thickness_cm and tread_depth_cm still rely on their names and defaults, so a bit of per-field enrichment is missing.

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: 'Preview a measured grid, staircase or room blockout.' This clearly identifies the domain and distinguishes the tool from sibling preview tools like mesh, surface, or spatial preview. The follow-up 'Review then use unreal_apply(plan_id)' reinforces that this is a preview-before-apply step.

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 makes the intended workflow clear: preview first, review, then call unreal_apply(plan_id). It also signals when the tool is not appropriate by stating 'No model request or scene mutation.' It does not explicitly compare against alternative preview tools, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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