Add door

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

Annotations already describe the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a real behavioral trait: the tool creates a HOLE geometry that cuts through the wall, which is not derivable from the annotations, plus a pointer to rules EVAC-002/GEO-004.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the purpose and mechanism, followed by a compact rules reference. Everything is relevant; the bracketed rule line is slightly cryptic but earns its place as a compliance pointer.

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 5-param mutating geometry tool with no output schema but full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism and params adequately. It still omits prerequisites (existing wall), the relationship to add_hole/add_window, and any note on reversibility.

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%, so the schema already documents defaults for width, height and position. The description only restates 'wall obstacle ID and door position/size' at a high level, adding no syntax or range detail beyond the schema, which lands it at the baseline.

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 ('add a door opening in a wall') and the mechanism ('Creates a HOLE that cuts through the wall'), so an agent understands the effect. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (add_window, add_hole), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Convenience tool' and 'Specify the wall obstacle ID and door position/size' hint at when to reach for it, and the rule reference signals a compliance step. But it never states when to prefer this over add_hole or add_window, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an existing wall), so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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