create_wall_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It does this well by stating that it draws outer and inner outlines on layer 'murs' and returns axis_points plus interior bounds and area. It also clarifies that thickness defaults to 200 mm, which is useful because the schema default is null. It does not mention fit_view behavior, but overall it is transparent enough.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then side effects and return value. Each sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers points, alignment, thickness, the drawing side effect, the target layer, and the key return value. The only gap is fit_view, but since it defaults to true and is likely a viewport nicety, the description is nearly 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 compensate. It explains points as polygon vertices in mm and in order, defines each alignment value with concrete examples, and states the thickness default. The only parameter it fails to describe is fit_view, which prevents a perfect score.

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 closed run of walls' with 'clean mitered corners.' This clearly distinguishes it from open-wall creation tools like create_wall_2d or create_line, and the 'house perimeter' example reinforces the intended loop use case.

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 alignment advice ('use this for house 12 x 8 m' with outer alignment), but it never says when to choose create_wall_loop over create_wall_2d, create_partition_2d, or create_rectangle. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance for tool selection.

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