Create columns

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: it is a single undo step, unspecified settings inherit from the Column tool defaults (which are often top-linked), and it returns [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order. It doesn't discuss failure modes like batch partial failure in depth.

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?

Content is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then coordinate/story defaults, then the height caveat, then the example, then the return contract. Every sentence carries information, though the enumeration of column types and the example make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 correctly supplies the return shape ([{guid, type} | {error}] in input order) and points to get_element_details for reading back segments, cuts and elevations. Combined with a working example, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns more by explaining the height/topLinkedStory/topOffset interaction and giving a concrete typical payload, which disambiguates how the params combine. It does not document the full range of section/surface fields, but the schema already does that.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('Creates columns'), then enumerates the variations it supports (rectangular, circular, complex-profile, tapered, slanted, multi-segment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling modify_columns and the other create_* element tools.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance on scoping (coordinates in meters, angles in degrees, default current story) and a critical usage tip about supplying 'height' or 'topLinkedStory' so the height is predictable, plus a 'typical' object example. It does not explicitly name modify_columns as the alternative when editing existing columns, 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.