create_building

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the building is added directly to the active dataset (single source of truth), that a snapshot should precede creation and save_dataset persist it, and what the return value contains (all attributes plus bounding box). It does not discuss permissions or failure/reversibility semantics, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose and LoD semantics before the parameter block, and the Args entries each earn their place. The Returns section partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is minor waste and keeps it just under a 5.

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 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition supplies the parameter grammar, defaults, conditional requirements, side effects on the active dataset, and workflow routing. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing; return details are covered by 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 fully, and it does: every one of the 9 parameters is documented with format (e.g. groundsCoordinates as closed [[x1,y1],...] ring), units (Meter), defaults (lod=2, isRoofEdge=False), conditionality (geometryHeight for LoD 1+2, roofType/roofHeight for LoD 2), and enumerated roofType codes.

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 and resource ('Erstellt ein neues Gebäude') plus the operative scope (wählbarer Detaillierungsgrad LoD 0/1/2). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the take_snapshot/save_dataset workflow, so an agent can tell what this tool does and how it fits alongside create_dataset and enrich_building.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: use take_snapshot() before creating and save_dataset() to persist, which routes the agent through sibling tools. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or disambiguation against enrich_building/remove_building_from_dataset, 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.