Construire un lot d'éléments de bâtiment

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) but not the rest. The description adds crucial behavior: normalized layer placement, thick walls become closed polylines (single hatchable entity), door leaves follow wall orientation, angles corner-together instead of overlapping, openings physically cut the wall with jamb, omitted lengths default-converted to the document unit, angles in degrees, response carries created handles AND failures with the offending index. This is behavior beyond both annotations and schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the batch scope, then usage routing, then the critical wall_network rule, then default-unit behavior and return/verify. Paragraphs are purposeful; the only mild redundancy is the length-default rule stated once, which actually aids recall.

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?

For a 2-param batch tool with an enormous oneOf schema and no output schema, the description fills exactly the gaps an agent needs: element-selection routing, unit/default behavior, degree convention, and the response contract (handles + failures with index) plus a verification step. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly (per-element descriptions, openings semantics, layer list, color ACI caveats). The description reinforces the most decision-critical semantics: use wall_network for walls and give it its openings, default conversion of omitted lengths, angles in degrees. Above the baseline of 3 thanks to that if/then guidance, but not fully additive.

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?

Specific verb (construit) + resource (lot d'éléments de bâtiment) with an explicit enumeration of what the batch includes (réseaux de murs, baies, portes, fenêtres, pièces, étiquettes). It explicitly positions itself against the sibling 'draw' (which 'ne connaît que la géométrie nue') and against wall/wall_run/door_in_wall/window in the Openings paragraph.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (tout ce qui relève du plan d'architecture), when-not (draw for bare geometry), and named alternatives per element type: wall_network for walls with openings, wall_run/door_in_wall/window reserved for isolated objects. Post-call verification with render_view is also prescribed.

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