Create curtain walls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false/destructive=false/idempotent=false, so the burden is lower, yet the description adds substantive context: creation happens in a single undo step, unspecified settings fall back to tool defaults, and the return shape [{guid, type} | {error}] is disclosed even though no output schema exists. Not exhaustive (no auth/permission notes) but genuinely additive.

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?

A single dense but well-ordered paragraph that front-loads what is created and the base-line modes before descending into fields, defaults and return value. Every sentence carries information; it is long but not padded.

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 two-parameter, high-coverage creation tool with no output schema, the description covers construction modes, units, defaults, one-undo-step behavior, return format and the follow-up editing tools. Only minor gaps (idempotency/pagination-free bulk limits) remain.

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 raises it by clarifying semantics the schema doesn't spell out — primarySpacing as module width along the wall, secondarySpacing as module height, meters for coordinates, degrees for angles, and current-story defaulting.

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 and resource ('Creates curtain walls') and distinguishes the two construction modes ('begin'/'end' straight vs 'path' polyline/curved). It also names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes post-creation editing to modify_curtain_wall_parts (single panels/frames) and modify_curtain_walls (height/grid/classes), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, state exclusions against neighboring creation tools like create_walls, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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