Execute Archicad API Command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: long executions return status='running' with a jobHandle, pagination via page_token, and the critical caveat that 'Cancelling this request does not cancel an admitted execution'. That last detail is exactly the kind of non-obvious write semantics an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action comes first, then a labeled CRITICAL WORKFLOW, then edge cases. Every sentence carries operational information, though the paragraph is longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 an open-ended dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: prerequisite schema lookup, required port, pagination, asynchronous job handles, retrieval, retry caution, and cancellation semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret the two response shapes.

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% and 'arguments' is an open nested object, so the description must compensate. It does: 'arguments' must contain a 'port' number sourced from discovery_list_active_archicads, may need a 'page_token', and 'name' must correspond to a command validated via archicad_get_command_schema. It stops short of 5 only because it never enumerates any concrete command names or argument keys.

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?

States a specific verb ('Executes') and resource ('a specific Archicad API command') and clarifies that the command is selected by the 'name' parameter, which distinguishes it from archicad_list_commands and archicad_get_command_schema. It is a generic dispatcher rather than a domain-specific operation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: call archicad_get_command_schema first for the exact JSON structure, obtain 'port' from discovery_list_active_archicads, and use archicad_get_job to retrieve long-running executions. It also gives a conditional rule (next_page_token) and a when-not-to-retry rule ('list jobs before retrying a write'), leaving nothing to inference.

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