add_brush_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool writes the file, mentions texture format behavior in empty Shogo maps, and explains the editor reload policy when there are unsaved edits, including the default to keep the editor version. This is rich behavioral context well beyond a simple 'add brush'.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then branches into target selection and technical behavior. The third sentence is slightly dense but each clause adds necessary behavioral information, so nothing feels wasteful.

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 write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: file path, corners, texture, entity target, and side effects on the editor. It lacks explicit error-handling or return-value information, but it gives enough for an agent to call it correctly in the Shogo/TrenchBroom context.

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 100%, giving each parameter a basic description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for entity_index (default worldspawn, can target func_door-like entities) and texture (auto-selects 'Standard' in empty Shogo workspaces), which goes beyond the schema. It does not add detail for min/max or map_path, but those are already clear from the schema.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'Add an axis-aligned box brush.' It differentiates itself from sibling tools by specifying it creates box brushes (as opposed to entities, deletion, or transformation) and clarifies the common target worldspawn vs. an explicit brush entity.

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 gives solid within-tool guidance on the entity_index parameter, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_entity, delete_brush, or translate_entity. Usage context is implied rather than directly compared with siblings.

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