ring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains coordinate directions, the half-size meaning, and the gap/gate placement behavior that the schema alone does not convey. However, it does not state whether this mutates existing blocks, what y defaults to, or what the tool returns.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core shape and center/half specification before adding optional gap details. The parenthetical coordinate mapping is compact but slightly dense.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient for reliable invocation. The required piece parameter is undefined, vertical positioning via y is absent, and return/error behavior is not mentioned. Build side effects like overwriting existing walls are also not covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cx, cz, half, gapSide with direction mapping, gapWidth, and mentions gate, but it leaves the required piece parameter and the y parameter undocumented. This is meaningful but partial compensation.

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 specifies a square ring of walls centered on (cx, cz), with half-size semantics and optional gap behavior. It is distinct from siblings like wall_run or perimeter_check in shape, though it does not explicitly name which sibling it competes with.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided; the agent is not told when to prefer ring over wall_run, perimeter_check, stack, or other building tools. The only usage cue is the implied geometry, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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