merge_walls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it explains fusing, the empty interior of create_wall_loop rings, and the non-merging of door/window-opened walls. It does not state whether the original outlines are replaced or deleted, but the merge semantics and edge cases are clearly communicated.

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 three sentences with the core operation front-loaded first, followed by two high-value caveats. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter, one-output-schema tool, the description covers operation, layer scoping, parameter override, and key edge cases. The main omission is an explicit before/after statement about what happens to the original wall objects, but this is not blocking for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 add meaning to the only parameter, and it does: 'on layers 'murs' and 'cloisons' (or the given `layers`)' clarifies that `layers` overrides the default. It could add behavior for null vs empty arrays or where valid layer names come from, but this is adequate for a single optional parameter.

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 precise action and resource: 'Fuse the closed wall outlines that overlap or touch into clean outlines (no doubled lines)'. It also identifies target layers and names the related create_wall_loop behavior, making the tool's role distinct from wall-creation siblings.

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 context for when the tool applies: overlapping/touching closed wall outlines on 'murs'/'cloisons' or the given layers, and it states an important limitation ('Walls already opened by a door/window are not merged'). However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when to prefer this over sibling tools like fill_walls.

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