create_door_2d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it states that the tool cuts an opening, draws jambs/leaf/arc, creates a single moveable object, assigns BIM metadata, and warns when no wall is found. It does not fully address destructive consequences or how the wall is modified beyond cutting, but the disclosed behavior is substantially informative.

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 dense but well-structured: the first paragraph explains the tool's core behavior and BIM nature, while a compact parameter list covers semantics and defaults. Every sentence adds useful information, and nothing feels redundant or overlong.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the main behavior, defaults, parameter meanings, and an error condition. The main gaps are fit_view not being explained and orientation's default value not being repeated in the description, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains nearly all parameters: position center on wall axis, width default, orientation as wall direction, wall_thickness for wall vs partition, hinge start/end, swing direction with defaults, mark numbering, height default, and material default. The one notable omission is fit_view, which is not mentioned in the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cut a door opening in the wall and draw the classic door.' It clearly identifies the tool as creating a door, distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_window_2d, and adds concrete detail about the resulting door object being a single block and a BIM object.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated: the tool works on a wall, warns if no wall is found, and suggests using wall_thickness=100 for partitions. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as create_window_2d, create_wall_2d, or create_partition_2d, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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