Modify stairs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the change happens "in one undo step", the baseline is immutable, and the return shape is "[{guid} | {error}]". It does not explain permission/teamwork reservation needs, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and ending with the return shape. The long field enumeration partially restates schema properties, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is wasted at the sentence level.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still discloses the return format [{guid} | {error}]. Combined with the rich annotations, the one-undo-step transaction scope, and the immutable-baseline constraint, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the schema documents each field in depth (e.g. height/riserCount/riserHeight coupling, treadDepthLocked). The description's field list largely mirrors what the schema already provides, adding only a coupled mention of "height / top link" and "locks". Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ("Changes existing stairs") and enumerates the editable properties (height, width, riser count/height, tread depth, direction, numbering, thickness, rule checks), which is far beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling modifiers like modify_elements or create_stairs, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear when-not with alternatives: the baseline cannot be changed, so move/rotate or recreate instead. It also implies use for edits to existing stairs vs create_stairs. It stops short of naming modify_elements as an alternative for the shared fields, so not a full 5.

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