create_stair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses output composition, layer/unit context, the warning rule for steep or narrow stairs, and BIM behavior with mark E1/E2 and material Béton. It does not mention whether the active level must exist or whether repeated calls are additive, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 front-loaded with the main action and layer, and every clause contributes useful parameter or behavior information. It could be easier to scan with structured bullets, but no sentence feels wasted.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it defines geometry semantics, defaults, the warning rule, and BIM result. The main remaining gaps are fit_view behavior and an explicit active-level prerequisite, which keep it from being fully comprehensive.

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 compensate, and it does for most parameters: start, angle, stair_type, turn, width, tread, rise, risers, and landing_at are all explained with units or defaults. However, fit_view is left unexplained and mark/material are only indirectly referenced, so it is not a complete substitute for the schema.

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: 'Draw a stair on the active level as one block Escalier on layer escaliers', then lists the exact drawn elements. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create_stairs_3d by describing 2D plan features such as riser lines, walking line with arrow, and the 1.2 m cut line.

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 clear context: it targets the active level, uses layer 'escaliers', and is intended for plan-style stair drawing with a cut line. It does not explicitly contrast with create_stairs_3d or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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