create_wall

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

The description mentions 'Participates in undo', which is a behavioral trait. However, there are no annotations to rely on, and the description does not disclose other important behaviors like whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a creation 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 very concise with a single sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too brief for a tool with 6 parameters. Every sentence earns its place, but more content is needed to be useful.

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 complexity (6 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return behavior (despite an output schema existing), or differentiate from sibling tools. The output schema presence slightly mitigates the need for return value docs, but the description still lacks essential context.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Schema coverage is only 33% (only start and end have descriptions). The description's mention of 'Units: mm' is generic and does not explain the purpose or constraints of parameters like height_mm, thickness_mm, layer, or axis_offset_mm.

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 a wall element') and the location ('in the active Allplan document'). It is specific enough to distinguish from other creation tools based on the object type (wall vs. beam, column, slab), but could be more precise about the type of wall or any constraints.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like create_beam or create_column. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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