place_count

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses atomic undo ('the whole call is ONE undo step'), that each point yields a computed {count: 1} shape, that no scale is required, and how takeoff_summary will report the result. Auth/permission needs are not covered, but the behavioral payload is substantial.

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?

Opens with the core verb and unit, then packs in coordinate, undo, and reporting detail. Dense but front-loaded and each sentence carries information; slightly rambling with parenthetical asides.

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 3-required-param mutation with an output schema (so returns needn't be explained), the description covers coordinate space, atomicity, condition minting, and downstream reporting. Nothing critical is missing, though permission/error behavior is absent.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds meaning beyond it: it defines the coordinate space precisely (image px at render scale 2.0, PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down) and notes the condition tag is minted on first use. This meaningfully supplements the points/condition schema entries.

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 ('Count markers', committing one count shape per point) and clarifies it is the scale-free EA quantity family. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling count_marks or symbol_sweep, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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 examples (thresholds, stair nosings, floor boxes, entrance mats) and 'NO scale required' imply the right context for scale-free counting, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs count_marks/symbol_sweep guidance or exclusion.

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