set_wall_type

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful update semantics ('Only the given fields change') and documents defaults for murs and cloisons. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on existing walls, required existing layers, validation behavior, or error cases, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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: purpose, field list, defaults, and update behavior are each covered in a single dense sentence. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the essential facts: purpose, affected fields, defaults, and partial-update semantics. It could be more complete by pointing to get_wall_types for reading existing values or by explaining validation/error behavior, but nothing critical is missing for a basic invocation.

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 maps the parameters to real-world meaning (type name, material, fire rating, finish, load_bearing), provides a fire rating example ('REI 60'), and defines defaults per layer (murs = Mur, Maçonnerie, load-bearing; cloisons = Cloison, Plâtre). This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it leaves the exact semantics of the name parameter slightly implicit.

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 clearly states the resource being affected (walls of a layer), the purpose (schedules and IFC export), and the fields (type name, material, fire rating, finish, load_bearing). The verb 'describe' is a bit less direct than 'set' or 'update', but the tool name and field list resolve the intent. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_wall_types, but the write-focused wording is enough to avoid confusion.

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: use this when configuring wall type metadata for schedules and IFC export. It also clarifies partial-update behavior with 'Only the given fields change.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over read-style siblings like get_wall_types.

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