Create zones

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

Annotations only cover the safe-mutation profile (readOnly false, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the description carries the rest and does so well: 'one undo step', the clear-error failure mode when a referencePoint is not enclosed, defaults inherited from the Zone tool, and the per-item return shape [{guid, type} | {error}] in input order.

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 the core action and the mode split, then progressively adds prerequisites and defaults. Dense but almost every clause carries operational information; only the enumeration of stamp/fill settings slightly duplicates the schema.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return shape, the undo semantics, the mode-selection rule, and the cross-tool calls needed to obtain valid attribute/stamp values. 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the MANUAL/AUTOMATIC distinction, boundary semantics, and stamp-reset behavior). The description restates a few key fields (name, number, category, height, bottomOffset) but adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Creates zones (rooms/spaces)') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools by defining the two creation modes (MANUAL polygon vs AUTOMATIC referencePoint). An agent can tell this apart from update_zones/modify_zones without opening any 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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ('Create the walls first'), explains the failure condition for automatic mode, and routes to concrete alternatives/supporting tools (get_attributes for localized ZoneCategory, search_library_parts for stamps, get_gdl_parameters for stamp params, get_zones to read areas back). This is explicit when-to-use and where-to-look guidance.

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