Create elevations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond this by noting it is 'one undo step' and by summarizing the return shape '[{guid, name, database, ...}]'. It does not mention permission or default-layer side effects, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose, followed by parameter semantics, a compact example, and the return shape. It is dense but every sentence carries information. Slightly long single-paragraph packing, but no filler.

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 responsibly summarizes the return value, and it covers the geometrically tricky parameters that most need explanation. It omits secondary options (layer, storyIndex, renovationStatus, verticalRange/horizontalRange, referenceId), though those are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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?

Although the top-level schema description coverage registers 0%, the description adds real semantic meaning beyond the (nested) field descriptions: begin/end is the elevation line placed outside the building, viewSide looks toward the building, and depth is how far it sees. The worked example (south facade y 0..10) concretely resolves the geometry, which the schema alone does not.

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+resource: 'Creates elevation markers on the floor plan (one undo step), each with a new elevation viewpoint.' This clearly conveys the output. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like create_sections or create_interior_elevations, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can identify the core purpose immediately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that begin/end must be 'placed OUTSIDE the building' is an operational constraint, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need X, use create_sections instead' guidance. No conditions or exclusions relative to the many sibling creation tools are provided.

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