add_furniture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses units (centimetres), rotation units (degrees), the y-down coordinate system, and important limitations (no door/window binding, cannot invent missing 3D models or unsupported catalogue entries). This goes well beyond a minimal action statement.

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 concise and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by two compact high-value notes on units/coordinate system and limitations, then a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides strong core context: units, coordinate system, limitations, and an example. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. Still, with 0% schema coverage, the semantics of optional parameters and any preconditions like a valid existing project are left implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Description adds essential meaning for core parameters: x/y are interpreted in the y-down coordinate system, rotation is in degrees, and lengths are in centimetres. The example also demonstrates project_path and catalog_id usage. However, with 0% schema_description_coverage, optional parameters like depth, width, height, elevation, room_name, and allow_overlap rely only on their names for semantics.

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 opens with 'Add furniture to a .sh3d project', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like add_wall, add_room, and add_dimension by targeting furniture, and explicitly states it does not bind doors or windows to walls.

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 tool's purpose implies it should be used when furniture needs to be added, and the example shows a typical invocation. However, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it; the limitation notes are exclusions rather than routing to alternatives.

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