Create stairs

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the single-undo-step behavior, that stair rule checks can reject the geometry, the ignoreRules escape hatch, the story-default resolution, and the exact return shape. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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-loaded with purpose and scoping, then examples, constraints, and failure handling in a single dense paragraph. Efficient, though the run-on nature slightly reduces scannability.

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?

For a complex creation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format ('[{guid, type} | {error}]'), the geometry constraints that cause failure, and the related sibling for follow-up work. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the baseline-length rule (≈ (riserCount-1) × treadDepth), the invariant height = riserCount × riserHeight and how to satisfy it, units (meters/degrees), and that unspecified settings fall back to tool defaults.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Creates stairs') and immediately scopes it ('in one undo step from a baseline'), distinguishing it from modify_stairs and create_railings in the sibling list. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Explains the two baseline input modes (begin/end straight flight vs. baseline polyline for turning stairs) and gives guidance for failure ('if Archicad rejects the geometry... adjust the values or pass ignoreRules: true'). It also points to get_element_details and create_railings as follow-ups, though it never states when not to use this tool versus modify_stairs.

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