Create roofs

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with openWorldHint false. The description goes further: it says results are returned as [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order, that all items are one undo step, that a failing item does not stop the others, and that attribute names are localized and should be looked up with get_attributes. That is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: a short purpose statement followed by SinglePlane and MultiPlane explanations, a concrete example, units/attribution notes, and return/undo behavior. Most sentences earn their place, though some schema-level parameter descriptions are repeated, adding minor padding.

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 description covers both modes, gives a concrete example, states units, defaults, localization, and return/undo semantics. For a complex multi-mode creation tool with no output schema it is strong, though it could mention whether stories matter for placement or that roof elements can be modified later with modify_roofs.

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 parameter and nested field. The description adds conceptual context (pivotLine is the eaves line, pivotPolygon is usually the wall outline, slopeAngle is in degrees) but does not provide syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 roofs') and then precisely delineates the two modes, SinglePlane and MultiPlane, including the geometric parameters that distinguish them. Siblings create_walls/create_slabs are separate element types, and the tool's domain is unmistakable.

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?

The description explains the two roof-class options and how to build a gable roof from two SinglePlane roofs, which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over create_slabs or create_shells, nor does it give prerequisites like story context or attribute lookup for a first-time caller beyond mentioning get_attributes.

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