Highlight failing elements

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description carries most of the weight and does add real context: highlighting is window-level across all stories, zoom can be suppressed, zero-failure rules clear the highlight, and the add-on prerequisite is disclosed. It stops short of saying whether the highlight persists after the call returns or how it interacts with subsequent API calls.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded in the first two clauses, which is good. The remaining sentences are dense with tool-hopping and ambiguous pronoun reference ('show_elements opens the right story or view'), costing more parsing effort than the information justifies.

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 needn't be described, and the add-on requirement is a useful inclusion. Still, one of three parameters is unexplained and the relationship to the sibling show_elements tool is asserted without enough grounding for an agent to act on confidently.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains zoom=false and ties rule_id loosely to 'a rule'. The port parameter is never mentioned, and the repeated 'show_elements with guids=[]' phrasing introduces parameter-like syntax for a different tool, which can mislead an agent into thinking guids belongs here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: highlight elements failing a rule in the Archicad window and zoom to them. Scope ('every story at once') is stated, which separates it from per-story or selection-based siblings. The trailing sentences about show_elements blur the boundary, since they describe another tool's behavior rather than this one's.

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 gives some operative conditions: zoom=false to leave the view, a rule with no failures removes the highlight, and the Tapir add-on is required. But it never says when to use this instead of show_elements, find_elements, or run_rule, and the show_elements cross-references are asserted without explaining how the two tools relate.

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