create_walls_3d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states the origin (z=0), units (mm), layer selection, door/window cutting rules, and the destructive 'Replaces the previous 3D walls' side effect. It also discloses the return value (volume and z range).

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 packs all essential behavioral and parameter information into three focused sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by cutout details, replacement warning, and return value.

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 the core transformation, parameters, side effects, and return type, so an agent can likely call the tool correctly by relying on defaults. It is slightly incomplete because 'view' is not explained and prerequisites (existence of 2D wall layers) are only implied, not stated.

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%, but the description compensates for height, partitions, door_height, window_sill, and window_height by explaining their role and units. Only 'view' is left unexplained; the schema only provides a default, so an agent would not know what setting it to false does.

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 ('Extrude the 2D walls ... into solids'), names the exact layers and parameters, and clearly distinguishes itself from 2D wall creation siblings by describing the 3D extrusion and cutout behavior. The replacement behavior also clarifies its role among wall-related tools.

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 implies the tool is used after 2D walls exist on the named layers and when a 3D extrusion with door/window openings is needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer create_walls_3d over alternatives like merge_walls or create_wall_2d, nor give exclusion criteria.

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