add_wall

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses units (centimetres), coordinate system orientation (y increasing downward), and limitations (does not create rooms, only pairwise multi-wall joins). It does not mention side effects or file mutation, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential units/coordinate context and a concrete example. No waste. The caveat about the join model is slightly jargon-heavy but still earns its place.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers units, coordinate system, and a key limitation, and the output schema exists. But the optional parameters remain unexplained, and the 'documented pairwise join model' reference assumes external knowledge. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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% for 10 parameters, and the description only explains the coordinate/unit meaning of x/y and lengths. It adds no meaning for join, height, thickness, height_at_end, allow_crossing, or project_path. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a wall to a .sh3d project.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_room by explicitly noting 'This tool does not create rooms,' avoiding ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to add walls to .sh3d projects, and it explicitly says it does not create rooms. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond the room exclusion.

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