Create walls

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the entire call is 'one undo step,' unspecified settings fall back to Wall tool defaults, and the return shape is '[{guid, type} | {error}] in input order.' Permissions and partial-failure semantics are not covered, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then units, defaults, chaining, and return value. Every sentence carries actionable information with no 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?

For a complex batch-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers units, default story, defaults inheritance, chaining, and return format. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits failure behavior when some walls in the batch error out.

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?

Top-level coverage is 0% and the 'walls' container itself is undocumented in the schema, but the description supplies cross-cutting semantics the nested schema lacks: units (meters/degrees), default story, tool-default fallback, and the corner-joining convention. The per-field descriptions in the schema do the rest.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('walls') and enumerates the supported wall variants (straight, curved, trapezoid, slanted). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as create_slabs, create_columns, and create_curtain_walls.

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?

Provides useful context: coordinates in meters, angles in degrees, default story is the current story, and 'Chain walls end-to-start so Archicad joins the corners.' However, it never names alternatives (e.g., modify_elements, create_elements) or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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