create_issues_from_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the Tapir add-on requirement and that failing elements are attached, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or how existing issues are handled—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the core action, source, output, and a key dependency. There is no redundancy or 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?

The output schema likely covers return values, but the rest of the context is thin: no parameter mapping, no usage workflow (e.g., run_rule first), no side-effect or failure-mode information. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. It never explains that rule_id identifies the rule whose failures are used, nor what port represents, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for required or optional inputs.

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 the action (create an Archicad issue), the source data (a rule's failures), and what gets attached (the failing elements). It also differentiates from siblings like run_rule and highlight_failures by specifying the issue-creation outcome.

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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite (requires Tapir add-on) and implies this tool is used after a rule has produced failures, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over related tools like run_rule or highlight_failures, nor does it state exclusions.

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