tag_all_walls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation action, scope, and precise placement, but does not mention behavior regarding pre-existing tags, error conditions if no walls exist, or whether the operation is reversible. These gaps leave some uncertainty for an AI agent.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second adds a valuable placement detail. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, where it operates, and the placement rule. While it does not address edge cases like duplicate tagging or invalid tag type IDs, these are not essential for this straightforward operation.

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?

The input schema descriptions cover both parameters 100%, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents tagTypeId and useLeader clearly, and the description offers no extra context beyond that.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create tags') and the exact resource ('all walls in the current active view'), plus placement detail ('middle point of each wall'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform delete, filter, or element-creation operations.

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 clear context by specifying 'current active view', implying its use case for tagging all walls in a view. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, such as when tagging only selected walls.

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