Create surfaces

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it runs in a single undo step, a failing item does not abort the batch, the per-item result shape is spelled out in input order, and the Cineware API limitation is disclosed. This is exactly the value-add layer annotations cannot provide.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then inheritance rules, examples, limitations, and return contract. Nearly every sentence carries actionable information, though the example payloads and return-shape notation push it toward the long side.

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 batch mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: inheritance defaults, undo semantics, partial-failure behavior, localization caveat, and an explicit return shape. An agent has what it needs to call it 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 coverage is 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the key semantic that unspecified fields inherit from 'basedOn' (or the first project surface without its texture), plus concrete payload examples for a plain color and for Glass. It adds real meaning over the raw schema without documenting every field.

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+resource ('Creates surfaces (3D materials)') and enumerates what a surface covers (color, reflection, transparency, 3D hatch, texture), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_building_materials 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: unspecified settings inherit from 'basedOn' or the project's first surface, Cineware channels are unreachable via the API, and names are localized so existing attributes should be looked up with get_attributes first. It stops short of explicitly routing against the nearest sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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