draw_bathroom

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that it doesn't open/copy/close files, accepts B2/B02 interchangeably, inserts without the catalog label, and explains editable and recorte parameters. It also warns that mirroring is a separate block, not xscale=-1.

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 yet dense, using short sentences to convey essential information. It front-loads the main purpose and then addresses important caveats. No redundant language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and no annotations, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects and usage warnings. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Some parameters like layer/create_layer remain underexplained, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to key parameters: tipologia (accepts B2/B02), editable (exploded), recorte_esquina/ancho/alto (corner cutout). It doesn't explain layer, confirm, rotation, create_layer, but the most important parameters are covered.

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 clearly states the tool inserts a real Azcuy bathroom type at coordinates (x,y) from the local MCP library. It explicitly distinguishes itself from draw_reference, calling itself the only correct way to place a bathroom.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Es la unica forma correcta de poner un bano') and warns against using draw_reference. It also provides guidance on mirroring via separate block types, which helps the agent choose the right approach.

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