draw_wall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure: it draws four parallel lines without caps, defines thickness by tipo, notes unit conventions, and records the axis in XData for later use by cut_opening. This is substantial context, though it doesn't cover every side effect or requirement.

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 dense yet well organized, with each sentence adding unique value: purpose, exclusions, structural details, units, and XData integration. There is no filler 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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core drawing behavior, unit conventions, and integration with cut_opening. However, some auxiliary parameters remain undocumented, so it is not fully complete.

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 is the main source. It explains tipo values and resulting thickness, espesor/revoque units, and puntos behavior, but leaves cerrado, create_layer, terminaciones, and layer_terminaciones unexplained. This is helpful but incomplete for 14 parameters.

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 'Dibuja un MURO de punta a punta' - a specific verb + resource - and immediately distinguishes itself from draw_room and library blocks. It clearly scopes the tool as drawing real-thickness walls with two layers.

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 what the tool is not ('No es draw_room... ni una pieza de biblioteca'), naming sibling alternatives, and explains that puntos mode draws full runs with mitered corners. It also ties to cut_opening via XData, giving a concrete downstream usage context.

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