Create interior elevations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the operation is 'one undo step', it is not idempotent in practice (wrong-facing views must be recreated), and it returns a guid/segment structure. That is meaningful, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then mechanism, then parameters, then return shape and next step. Dense but each clause carries information; a single compact paragraph with 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 usefully supplies the return shape ([{guid, name, segments:[{index, name, database}]}]) and the follow-up call (open_view with element, segmentIndex). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and chain it correctly; only undoName and the many optional marker fields go unmentioned.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% and undoName is undocumented anywhere, so the description carries some burden. It does add meaning for the key nested fields ('points' as a wall polyline, depth as per-segment view depth in m, closed for all walls), though the nested schema descriptions already state most of this.

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 interior elevation markers') and explains the mechanism (polyline along room walls, one view per segment). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_elevations, create_sections, or create_details, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 operational usage hints: points should run along the inside of walls, closed:true covers all walls, and a wrong-facing view is fixed by reversing the point order. It also routes to open_view for the follow-up step. However, it never states when to use this instead of create_elevations/create_sections or any precondition/exclusion.

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