Create complex profiles

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

With annotations covering readOnly/destructive/idempotent/openWorld, the description adds substantive behavior: one undo step, return shape {results: [...]} in input order, failure isolation ('one failing item does not stop the others'), and localization caveat. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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?

The description is long but front-loads purpose, then an example, then limitations and return behavior; each sentence supplies actionable detail. The example is valuable for a geometry-heavy tool, though the text could be trimmed slightly.

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?

The tool is complex (nested shapes, no output schema), and the description supplies the missing return contract, undo semantics, failure isolation, and a usage caveat. With annotations covering safety, this is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 50%, so the description carries moderate burden. It provides a concrete polygon example with meter coordinates and x/y orientation, plus hints for core/buildingMaterial, but it does not explain every nested parameter (folder, pen indices, ifExists override) that the schema itself describes.

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 names a specific verb 'Creates' and resource 'complex profiles', enumerates the element types they apply to (walls, beams, columns, handrails), and notes they are built from polygons. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling attribute creators like create_composites or create_fills.

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 tells the agent how to use the result ('Use it with the profile field of walls/columns/beams') and to look up localized names with get_attributes first. It also notes 'basedOn copies an existing profile' and that stretch zones/parameters are unsupported, but does not compare it against alternative attribute creation tools.

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