Place objects (library parts)

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: that all placements occur in one undo step (with undoName), that the return is [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order (per-item failures, not all-or-nothing), and that GDL param changes run the part's parameter script like the settings dialog. Localized-name gotcha is also disclosed.

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 and the required fields, then packs the optional list efficiently. The long 'Optional:' enumeration is dense but each item is distinct, so little is wasted; slight tightness could be improved.

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 supplies the return shape and error model, names required fields and units, and covers sibling routing and follow-up tools. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by flagging that libraryPart names are LOCALIZED (must be discovered via search_library_parts), giving units (position/elevation in meters, angle degrees CCW), and mapping sizeA/sizeB/height to GDL A/B/ZZYZX semantics.

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 GDL objects ... in one undo step') and enumerates what counts (furniture, equipment, fixtures, custom parts). It explicitly differentiates from siblings: lamps go to create_lamps, doors/windows to the opening tools, and later edits to modify_elements.

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 the required prerequisite ('find them first with search_library_parts {query, type: 'Object'}'), names the exclusive alternatives (create_lamps, opening tools), and routes post-creation changes to modify_elements / set_gdl_parameters / change_library_part.

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