create_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that an existing name causes an update, that elevation defaults to stacking on the previous level, that activation switches to an empty plan, and that height means floor-to-floor. These are important side effects beyond the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences convey the core action, parameter semantics, defaults, and side effects. There is no filler, and the most important information appears 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?

The description covers creation, upsert behavior, defaults, and activation side effects well. Minor gaps remain: the height unit is not explicitly stated as mm, and there is no direct guidance on when to use 'set_active_level' instead of the activate flag. The output schema covers return values, so that burden is offloaded.

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 explain every parameter. It does: name gets an example, elevation is defined in mm with a default behavior, height is described as floor-to-floor, and activate is explained as switching to an empty plan. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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, 'Add a level (storey)', which is unambiguous diffusion from 'set_active_level' and 'copy_level'. It also clarifies the update-on-existing-name behavior, so the tool is recognizable as an upsert rather than a plain creation tool.

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 good context: when adding a level, when changing elevation/height, and when activating a level. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'set_active_level' for pure switching or 'get_levels' for listing, leaving the decision partially implied rather than explicit.

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