add_wall_vent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the addition operation and explains that specifications are relative to the first compartment's floor, which is helpful. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing vents with the same id, validation of compartment overlap) or potential errors.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, usage note, parameter list, and return type. It is front-loaded with key information. However, the parameter descriptions are somewhat verbose, and some details (like 'Default units: m') could be integrated into the schema or shortened without losing clarity.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and a simple output schema (string), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. It mentions the elevation overlap requirement and the 'OUTSIDE' option. Missing context includes potential error conditions, validation behavior, or interaction with other model elements, but overall it is sufficient for an experienced user.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description compensates fully by providing detailed explanations for each parameter, including units (m), defaults (offset=0 m), allowed values (face choices), and the special value 'OUTSIDE' for comp_b. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool adds a wall vent (door, window, or opening) between two compartments. It explicitly distinguishes the resource type from sibling tools like add_mechanical_vent and add_ceiling_floor_vent by focusing on physical openings that connect compartments overlapping in elevation.

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 specifies that both compartments must already exist and that comp_b can be 'OUTSIDE' for an exterior vent. It provides context for when to use (connecting overlapping compartments) but does not explicitly compare to alternative vent types or state when not to use this tool.

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