create_hatch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the single-block layer behavior, world-origin alignment for adjacent hatches, and the non-updating behavior when openings change later. Could add idempotency or overwrite behavior, but overall strong for a creation tool.

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?

All sentences earn their place; the parameter walkthrough is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose and layer. It packs examples and defaults without rambling.

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 seven parameters and no annotations, it covers coordinates, units, defaults, layer, and a timing caveat. With an output schema present, return values need no description. Minor omissions like invalid-input behavior or whether the layer must pre-exist keep it from a 5.

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%, yet the description documents every parameter with defaults, units, and examples: points, holes, pattern, angle, spacing, scale, and avoid_openings. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Hatch') and resource (an area as one Hachure block on a named layer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling fill tools by emphasizing parallel-line mechanics and the target layer.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance—hatch after placing doors/windows—and explains how to structure outer/inner outlines for wall rings using create_wall_loop output. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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