add_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important non-obvious details: centimetre units, degree rotations, y-axis orientation, and the tool's refusal to infer walls, repeat the closing point, or auto-split overlapping rooms. This is strong transparency, though it stops short of describing side effects or error behavior.

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?

Each sentence adds value: the action, units/coordinate system, explicit non-behaviors, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no fluff or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context for typical usage: required parameters, units, coordinate orientation, and key limitations. It is slightly incomplete on optional parameter semantics, but overall it gives a usable picture for a moderately complex tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides context for project_path and points via the example and units/coordinate system, and shows name usage, but area_visible and allow_overlap are never explained. It helps for the core parameters but leaves gaps for others.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a room polygon to a .sh3d project.' It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like add_wall, add_furniture, and add_dimension, so an agent can immediately identify its role.

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 implies use by describing the room-polygon operation and even mentions non-behaviors ('does not infer walls'), but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like add_wall or when not to use it. Usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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