create-walls

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: per-wall error isolation, returns created ids, GM-only access. Also details default channel blocking behavior ('omitted channels default to 20 blocking'). No mention of rate limits or auth beyond GM-only, but adequate.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured: starts with purpose, then coordinate/segment spec, then channels with defaults, then per-wall isolation and return. No wasted words, but could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, one being an array of objects with many properties, no output schema), the description covers coordinate alternatives, channel defaults, door types, per-wall error isolation, and return value. It lacks output schema details but none is provided. Adequate for a complex mutation tool.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains coordinate system ('absolute canvas pixels'), summarizes channel type options and defaults, clarifies door state values, and notes that 'omitted channels default to blocking'. This aids understanding beyond raw schema.

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 it creates WALL segments on a scene, specifying 'surgical additions' to existing walls. It distinguishes from walls 'normally drawn in the app or shipped by a map pack', and contrasts with sibling tools like 'update-walls' and 'delete-walls'.

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?

Provides clear context: 'surgical additions (block a corridor, add a door/secret door)' to existing walls. Sibling tools don't create walls, so usage is implied. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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