add_frame_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that new part files are created (one per profile/length, reused across members), where they go, and that the return includes placements plus a saw-cut list. It does not cover failure modes or transactional/undo behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose leads, then behavior, then a clearly delimited Args block, so it is well front-loaded. It is dense and largely earns its length, though the profile-family examples and roll/anchor asides could be trimmed slightly without losing information.

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 complex geometry-creating tool with an output schema, the description supplies units, defaults, per-member overrides, file side effects, and verification steps. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly on the first attempt 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 only 17%, but the description compensates thoroughly: it documents the members array shape, units (mm), and optional per-member keys (family, size, category, roll, anchor, extend) with semantics and examples. The one undocumented parameter, instance, is covered by its own schema description, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: builds steel frame members as Content Center custom-length profiles along skeleton lines in the active assembly. It explicitly distinguishes itself from place_components and use_content_center by explaining that this is what Frame Generator does and that Frame Generator has no API.

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?

Points the agent to use_content_center for the profile defaults and to capture_view to verify placements after the call. It gives clear operating context (active assembly, skeleton lines) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as place_components for non-structural component placement.

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