Architecture: Schedule

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the destructive-safe read nature, the row source, untagged-opening auto-numbering, empty cells instead of defaults, the 198-row ceiling, and the native vs composite representation outcome.

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 the core action and the key constraint (records, not caller input) before enumeration of details. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long, yet nothing is redundant filler.

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 values need not be described, and the definition still covers data source, refusal modes, and representation output. It stops short of covering edge behavior such as placement conflicts, but is otherwise complete for a 5-parameter, non-destructive generation 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 schema already documents x, y, kind, lang, and scale. The description adds context about the K1/P1/D1/W1 tag convention and decimal-comma semantics for 'tr', but supplies no new syntax or format detail for the remaining parameters, so 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+resource ('Draw a door, window or room schedule as a real TABLE') and clarifies it is a read of existing drawing records, distinguishing it from write tools like arch_wall/arch_opening/arch_room and from bom_table.

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?

Establishes clear prerequisites and context: rows come only from existing ACADMCP_ARCH records, and it enumerates refusal conditions (unknown kind/lang, nothing of that kind on the drawing, >198 rows). It does not, however, explicitly compare itself to near alternatives such as bom_table or data_extract.

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