Add window

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds only that this cuts an opening into an existing wall plus a rule-check pointer; it does not explain whether the operation is undoable, whether the window must fit the wall bounds, or what the call returns. This is adequate but thin.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The bracketed rules reference is cryptic and slightly cryptic to parse, which keeps it just short of ideal, but the core purpose is stated first.

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?

With a 6-parameter mutation tool, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition is workable but leaves gaps: it says nothing about what the tool does to the wall geometry on success, failure conditions, or how it relates to the draw_set_window_params sibling that configures window parameters.

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 100%, with defaults documented per parameter (width 1.2m, height 1.2m, position 0.5, sill_height 0.9m), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing beyond the sill-height concept, which is the minimum-viable 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 concrete verb and resource ('add a window opening in a wall') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling add_door, noting the sill-height difference. That contrast lets an agent distinguish it from the similarly-named add_door/add_hole without opening schemas.

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?

Calling itself a 'convenience tool' and pointing to rule GEO-004 via bulc_knowledge_search implies context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs add_door, add_hole, or the draw_add_story / draw_set_window_params family, nor any stated preconditions such as needing an existing wall.

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