Create doors

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. Beyond that, the description adds the 'one undo step' bulk behavior, the return shape [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order, and the defaults fallback — genuinely useful operational detail rather than restating the hints.

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 action and the two hard requirements, then orientation/localization/return details. Dense but each sentence carries information; no filler or restated title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return format, the bulk-undo behavior, the localization pitfall, and the defaults fallback. A few gaps remain (pagination-like maxItems of 500, error semantics beyond the shape), but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

The schema carries rich per-field descriptions, but the prose adds semantics the schema does not state as a rule: position and point are mutually exclusive alternatives, position is measured to the door centre, sillHeight is 'usually 0', and flipped/mirrored control opening and hinge sides. This meaningfully lifts it above the baseline.

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 ('Places doors into walls') and immediately distinguishes itself from related creation tools by naming the host object and the insertion geometry (position vs point). An agent can tell this apart from create_windows/create_openings 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?

Gives concrete usage context: each door needs a host wall GUID plus either position or point, unspecified settings fall back to Door tool defaults, and library part names are localized so use search_library_parts (type Door) first. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over sibling creators like create_openings, but the setup conditions are clear.

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