Merge a .pln / .mod file

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

With annotations only covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description carries the real behavioral burden: the hotlink-then-break side effect, the two-step undo, the refusal of pre-hotlinked files (with the reason it would over-convert), and the returned payload shape. Nothing about the mutation's consequences is left implicit.

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 non-obvious workaround, then the caveats, alternatives, refusal, return, and undo. Dense but every clause carries selection-critical information; no filler.

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 17-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description still names the return payload ({merged, elementCount, countsByType, elements:[guid]}) and covers undo and refusal semantics, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and reason about the result.

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 the schema already documents all 17 parameters, including the alternative-index layer/story selectors. The description only gestures at placement/story-range/keepHotlink, adding little beyond the schema's own text, so the baseline of 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 ('Merges another Archicad project... into this project as own, editable elements') and immediately discloses the implementation reality (place as hotlinked module, then break), which distinguishes it from siblings like place_hotlink, merge_elements, and export_module. An agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: IFC/DWG/DXF cannot be merged and the agent is routed to Archicad's File > Interoperability > Merge. It also names the keepHotlink:true condition that turns this into a live hotlink, and the refusal condition for already-hotlinked files. Use vs. alternatives is fully resolved.

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