Modify curtain wall panels / frames

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that all changes happen 'in one undo step', that setting a property customizes the part and causes it to leave its class unless classId is supplied, and that deletion leaves an empty cell. It also documents the return shape [{guid} | {error}], which no output schema provides.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then constraints (undo step, class behavior), then how to get inputs and what is returned. The parenthetical enumerations are functional, not 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: input provenance (GUID sources), the undo/idempotency behavior, class-vs-customization semantics, and the return contract. Nothing material is omitted.

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 the parameter baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics not obvious from individual fields: the interaction between classId and property-setting (a property assignment drops the part from its class), plus the panel-only vs frame-only applicability of surface/buildingMaterial.

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 (Changes) and precise resources (individual curtain wall PANELS and FRAMES), enumerating the editable properties, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling modify_curtain_walls (whole element) and modify_elements (generic). An agent can pick this without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required part GUIDs (get_element_details 'panels'/'frames' or get_subelements), which is the key precondition. It does not state when to prefer modify_curtain_walls or modify_elements instead, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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