Create or revise a furniture design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the destructive overwrite semantics ('revise an existing design in place') and the returned artifacts. It omits other behavior an agent would want, such as whether generation is deterministic, persistence/ownership implications, permissions, or cost.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then return values, then the revision hint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return payload (summary, validation issues, preview image), and all four parameters are documented in the schema. A mutation-capable tool with no annotations could say more about side effects, but the essentials are covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the mm units and the revision semantics of design_id. The description's restatement of the design_id behavior adds little beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Generate a parametric flat-pack design') and enumerates the concrete outputs it produces (panels, CNC machining, hardware, assembly steps), which clearly separates it from siblings like aikea_get_design or aikea_list_designs.

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 explicitly tells the agent that passing design_id switches the tool into revision-in-place mode, which is genuine usage guidance, and it points to aikea_list_options as the source of valid template keys. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over aikea_get_design for inspecting an existing design or what to do if the template is unknown.

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