Create beams

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it is a single undo step, unspecified settings inherit Beam tool defaults, the return format is [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order, and holes replace ALL existing holes. These are behavioral traits the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) do not convey.

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-loads what the tool creates, then units, then the 'level' semantics with an example, then a representative payload, then the return shape. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the geometry enumeration and example make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 very large input schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope, units, defaults source, level semantics with example, chaining, undo behavior, and return format. No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return contract, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: units summary (meters/degrees), the semantic of 'level' with a worked example (story height 3 m, level 2.8 = beam under slab), and the chaining convention. It does not attempt to explain the many section/surface fields, which the schema already documents well.

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 (Creates) and resource (beams) and enumerates the geometry variants supported (straight, curved, slanted, tapered, complex-profile, multi-segment). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like modify_beams, create_columns, and create_elements.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: coordinates in meters, angles in degrees, default story, chaining rule ('Chain beams end-to-start so Archicad connects them'), and that unspecified settings come from Beam tool defaults. It does not explicitly contrast create vs modify (modify_beams) or name when not to use it, 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.