Create hotspots

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive local write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-item partial failure semantics ('one failing item does not stop the others'), the return shape [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order, and the active-window storage rule. This exceeds what the annotations convey.

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-loads the core action, then window/scoping rules, then return semantics and lifecycle pointers. Dense but every clause carries operational information; 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return contract and failure behavior. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds defaulting behavior for storyIndex ('default: current story') and clarifies that height is elevation in meters useful for 3D/section snapping. It also ties field names to modify_elements, adding cross-tool naming context.

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 precise verb+resource ('Places hotspots (snap points) at 2D positions') with units and an explicit purpose ('reference/snap points for later drawing'). It is easily distinguished from sibling creation tools like create_elements, create_lines, or create_details.

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?

Names the lifecycle alternatives explicitly ('Change them later with modify_elements'; 'read them back with get_element_details') and states the environmental constraint (elements go into the ACTIVE window; a 3D window cannot hold 2D elements). An agent knows both when to call it and where its output lives.

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