Create hatches (fills)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), which only confirm this is a non-idempotent write, the description discloses rich behavior: placement into the ACTIVE window's database with window-type constraints, storyIndex default to current story, and critically the partial-failure contract ("one failing item does not stop the others") plus the return shape [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers on the necessary caveats (localized names, active-window placement, return/error semantics). Every sentence carries operational weight, though the run-on length slightly hurts scannability.

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 takes on full responsibility and delivers: it explains the return format, partial-failure behavior, window/story placement rules, attribute localization, and follow-up read/modify tools. An agent has everything needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every field (polygon, fillType, orientation, areaText, etc.). The description paraphrases these fields and adds the localized-attribute caveat, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource: "Creates 2D fill polygons (Archicad 'Fill' tool)", then enumerates the key aspects (polygon, arcs/holes, Fill pattern vs building material, pens, orientation, area text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_fills (attribute creation) and create_elements, so an agent can select it 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?

It names related tools and their roles: get_attributes to list localized attribute names, get_element_details to read back, modify_elements to change later, and it specifies where elements land (active window, storyIndex default, 3D window cannot hold 2D elements). It gives clear context but stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling rule.

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