Create sections

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: it creates one section viewpoint per item, groups the operation into a single undo step, and specifies the return array with either success objects or errors. It does not mention rate limits or authorization needs, but for a creation tool it provides solid additional transparency beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs a lot of useful information into a compact form. It lists item fields in a somewhat run-on manner, but every sentence contributes (purpose, item details, return shape, follow-up actions). It is appropriately sized for a complex creation tool.

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?

Given the rich nested schema and the annotations covering safety, the description adds valuable context: the undo grouping, return array format, and next steps with open_view and capture_view. It misses explaining the 'undoName' top-level parameter and does not mention the max of 100 items, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 reported as 0% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions many item fields (begin/end, viewSide, depth, vertical range, name, referenceId, storyIndex/layer) but these are already documented in the nested schema, and it omits the top-level 'undoName' parameter entirely. It also leaves out some item fields like elementId, horizontalRange, and renovationStatus, so it fails to fully cover the parameter space.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates section markers (cut planes) on the floor plan, each with its own new section viewpoint'. It distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like create_elevations (sections vs elevations) and create_details. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by describing creation of sections and then suggests follow-up actions: 'Open one with open_view {element: guid} and look at it with capture_view.' It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_elevations) or any prerequisites like an active floor plan view. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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