Add wall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by noting the automatic OBST bounding-box computation and that points live on the floor plane, but says nothing about duplicate ids or what happens on re-add despite idempotentHint=false.

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 defining inputs in one efficient sentence, followed by a short behavioral note. The appended rules/reference line is compact, though it is closer to metadata than to tool documentation.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that only cover the safety profile: the description gives the core geometry semantics but leaves surf_ids undocumented and doesn't state the effect of a duplicate id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the height/thickness defaults. The description contributes only the floor-plane coordinate interpretation of start/end; undocumented 'surf_ids' and the meaning of z_base get no help from the description. Baseline 3 fits.

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 wall') and names the defining inputs (start, end, height, thickness) plus the automatic OBST bounding-box calculation. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like add_obstacle or draw_add_story, which an agent building geometry would reasonably compare against.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing tells the agent why to pick add_wall over add_obstacle or the draw_* wall tools. The bulc rules line is a compliance pointer to bulc_knowledge_search, not guidance for selecting this tool.

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