create_roof_truss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it flags the unit convention ('unlike every other tool, this one uses US units') and describes the generated geometry ('proper web patterns, angled members, and realistic connections'). It still omits the side-effect shape (group/component creation, layer defaults) that a mutation tool benefits from disclosing.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the critical unit caveat, then a resource pointer – a sensible information hierarchy. Slightly padded by the 'proper web patterns, angled members, and realistic connections' clause, which is more reassuring than actionable.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers units, variants, span bounds, and a guidance resource. It leaves the return/side-effect picture (what object is created, whether defaults apply) unstated, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying span ranges to each truss type and reinforcing the feet-vs-inches unit split across parameters. This is genuine added value rather than restatement.

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 and resource ('Create engineered roof trusses') and immediately differentiates scope by naming the two supported variants (king post, fink/W-truss) with span ranges. An agent can distinguish this specialized tool from the family of generic create_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context via the span ranges for each truss type (king up to 26', fink 20-60') and routes to the construction://roof-trusses resource for deeper guidance. It does not state explicit exclusions or contrast with an alternative truss tool, but none exists among siblings, so the omission is minor.

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