Architecture: Catalogue Insert

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

With only readOnlyHint=false provided, the description carries real load: it discloses that the block carries an invisible ITEM attribute, that the layer is auto-created from the arch layer set, that size is nominal rather than a standards value, and critically that all refusals occur before any write (atomicity). This is substantive behavior an agent would not learn from the annotations.

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?

Two tight paragraphs with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense in the second paragraph (size vs outline distinction) but each sentence contributes distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers name sourcing, layer behavior, size basis, and refusal conditions. The only gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing, which is a minor incompleteness for a write tool with many insertion neighbors.

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 schema already documents x, y, rotation, and the catalogue name. The description adds the item footprint/size semantics but no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Define the item's block ARCH_<NAME> once, insert it on the furniture or sanitary layer.' The scope (catalogue block on a plan layer) clearly separates it from generic siblings like block_insert or std_part_insert, and the schema ties the name to arch_catalogue_list.

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 implies usage by stating what the name must be and by describing the refusal path for unknown names, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over block_insert, pid_symbol_insert, or std_part_insert. The catalogue route to obtaining names is only implied via the schema description.

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