dung_dam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about units, coordinate system, whether it creates a persistent object, or how it interacts with the scene. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap; the only disclosure is the meaning of one elevation parameter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the key clarification; every sentence earns its place with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter tool, but it is not bloated.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Units, coordinate format for diem_dau/diem_cuoi, the meaning of cao/rong, and the resulting object behavior are all absent, leaving the agent guessing on most inputs.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it clarifies only cao_do_day (bottom elevation, not top). The other five parameters (cao, rong, ten, diem_dau, diem_cuoi) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Dung mot dam ngang' = draw a horizontal beam), which is enough to distinguish it from structural siblings like dung_cot (column), dung_san (floor), and dung_tuong (wall). It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other draw_* siblings (dung_cot, dung_san, dung_mai, etc.), nor any prerequisites or context. The only guidance given is a parameter clarification, which is not usage routing.

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