create_roof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the tool 'Replaces the previous roof,' and explains how base_height, overhang, pitch, and thickness affect geometry. It does not mention failure cases or what `view` does, but the most important side effect is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses inline code formatting and packs substantial semantic detail into a single paragraph. It is slightly dense and could be improved with bullet separation, but almost every clause contributes real information.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the geometry well but leaves meaningful gaps: the `view` flag is unexplained, and the effect of `replace: false` is ambiguous given the blanket statement 'Replaces the previous roof.' The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but these parameter gaps keep it from being fully complete.

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. It explains kind, pitch range and ridge options, flat thickness, overhang units, points as an alternative to wall outline, and base_height as the starting height. It does not explain the `view` parameter, and `replace` is only indirectly covered by 'Replaces the previous roof.'

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 names a specific action and resource: creating a roof over walls, with detailed behavior for gable and flat variants. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_slab or create_walls_3d by anchoring on roof-specific geometry.

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 establishes clear context ('Roof over the walls') and internal choice guidance between 'gable' and 'flat', plus when to use `points` vs the wall outline. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states conditions like 'use create_slab for floors', so cross-tool routing is only implicit.

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