Attach elements to issue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds that the operation is 'one undo step' and discloses the response shape including a missing?: list of non-existent element GUIDs. That is real context beyond the annotations, though permission/auth constraints and what 'destructive' means here go unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense but useful clause-by-clause detail on each type and the return payload. Every sentence earns its place; slightly dense in the middle but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately spells out the return object and the meaning of each type. The only gaps are undoName semantics and any mention of failure/authorization behavior for a destructive operation.

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 80%, but the description adds non-obvious semantics: modificationPairs may be omitted (Modification implied), and with plain elements Archicad creates a modified copy of each. Only undoName is left unexplained, which is minor.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Attaches elements to an issue') and distinguishes itself from likely siblings (detach_elements_from_issue, get_issue_elements) by describing the four attachment semantics. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains when each type value applies (Highlight points, Creation/Deletion propose, Modification pairs or copies), which is genuine usage guidance for choosing behavior. It does not name sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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