Create details

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it is one undo step, returns a specific array shape, and tells the agent to open the resulting detail with open_view.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the window fallback, boundary semantics, return shape, and follow-up action are all compactly stated.

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 create tool with a deep nested schema and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, follow-up action, and core region/marker semantics. It omits undoName meaning and some defaults, but the nested schema covers most parameter detail.

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?

The nested schema descriptions already define box, polygon, markerPosition, storyIndex, and other properties in detail. The description restates boundary and marker semantics but does not explain undoName, and with top-level schema description coverage reported at 0%, it leaves a top-level parameter gap unfilled.

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 ('detail markers'), with the active-window scope and fallback to the floor plan. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools such as create_sections or create_elevations.

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 gives clear usage context: the current floor plan/section/elevation, or the floor plan when another window is active, and it points to open_view for the follow-up. It does not name when to choose this over sibling creation tools, but the context is explicit.

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