create_room_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it reveals the layer, centering behavior, automatic area computation, return value, and the creation of a BIM room object. It is silent on potential duplicate/overwrite behavior and current-level interaction, but it is far more explicit than typical create-tool descriptions.

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 each sentence earning its place: purpose, input mode, fallback mode, return, and BIM semantics. The parenthetical guidance about create_wall_loop is concise and directly actionable.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is mostly complete, but it omits scale semantics and does not explicitly state whether points and area_m2/position are mutually exclusive. The output schema helps with return documentation, but these input ambiguities make the definition not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameters; it explains points clearly, gives examples for usage and floor_finish, and states the area_m2+position alternative. However, scale is left entirely unexplained and position is only named, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 an exact deliverable—a room label consisting of name and area, centered, as a block on layer 'textes'—and thereby clearly separates it from generic text tools like create_text or dimension tools. It also states the extra BIM-object feature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear selection context: use points from interior wall faces to get automatic area, or supply area_m2 and position directly; optional usage and floor_finish tie into schedules/IFC. It does not explicitly compare to siblings such as create_text or dimension_room, so it falls short of a 5.

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