Dimension walls

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation that is non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it runs as one undo step, dimensions are linked so they follow later edits, and in EachWall/Thickness mode one failing wall does not stop the others. It also describes the return structure.

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 a single dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the core action, then proceeds to modes, placement, and return format. Every sentence carries useful information, and given the tool's complexity (35 parameters, three modes), the length is justified, though a slightly more structured format could improve scanability.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for correct invocation: what the tool does, mode selection, prerequisite steps, associative linking, undo behavior, and the return structure (including error handling). With high schema coverage and no output schema, it provides adequate completeness, though it could explicitly mention that other parameters follow standard Archicad dimension defaults.

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 very high (91%), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how key parameters interact—particularly the 'mode' behaviors, 'direction' defaulting to the first wall's direction, 'side' auto selection, 'distance' placement, 'overall' behavior, 'thicknessPosition', 'openingPoints', and 'associative' linkage—adding meaningful context not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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: it automatically dimensions walls on the Floor Plan, creating associative dimension chains from wall end points and opening jambs/centers. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic dimension-creation siblings by being wall-specific and automatic, and it specifies the three modes it supports.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each mode (Chain vs EachWall vs Thickness) with examples such as 'pass all walls of a facade', and it tells the user to get wall GUIDs first via list_elements, find_elements, or get_selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like create_dimensions or modify_dimensions for cases where this tool is not appropriate.

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