Elevate elements

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

Annotations declare destructive, non-idempotent, non-readonly, but the description goes well beyond that: it names the exact failure classes reported as per-item errors (locked elements, locked/hidden layers, hotlinks, out-of-workspace elements), explains the 'warning' semantics (Archicad may have ignored it), and details how copy=true/ count stacking behaves. This is unusually rich disclosure that directly informs safe use.

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 and front-loaded: the core action, its relative-offset effect, and the sibling exclusions come first, then return shapes and error classes. Every sentence carries information, though the single block is long and could be marginally tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing both return shapes ({results:[...], warnings?} and the copy-style result with createdCount/additionalCreated) and the per-item error model, so an agent knows exactly what to expect on success and failure.

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 100% so parameter syntax is already documented, but the description adds semantic meaning the schema does not: copy=true stacks copies at k × deltaZ, and the effect on relative offsets (wall bottom offset, object elevation) with the home story unchanged. Only minor redundancy on deltaZ's sign convention keeps this from a 5.

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 ('Moves model elements vertically by deltaZ meters') with a concrete unit and UI-menu mapping (Edit > Move > Elevate). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming modify_elements storyIndex and copy_elements_to_stories as the tools for changing the home story.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: use this to change vertical offset, but use the named sibling tools to change the home story. It also states the copy=true alternative for stacking and clarifies which elements are out of scope (2D elements), leaving nothing to inference.

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