Place hotlinked modules

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

Annotations only give the generic safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds real behavioral context: placement counts as one undo step, 'a hotlink node is created, or an existing node with the same file and story settings is reused', and that the placed module stays live-linked until explicitly broken. It omits permission/coordination requirements, so it falls short of 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then source modes, then post-placement workflow, then return shape and limitation — a logical order with no filler sentences. The heavy parentheticals make it dense, but every clause carries actionable information.

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 supplies the return shape ([{guid, nodeGuid, nodeCreated, instance, node} | {error}]), the undo granularity, the lifecycle of the link, and the API limitation. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every field is already documented in the schema. The description restates the semantics of position/angle/mirror and storyIndex in prose ('where the source's origin lands', 'the home story') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 precise verb (Places) and resource (hotlinked modules) and immediately distinguishes the two source modes (a file via 'source' or another instance via 'node'). It also names the sibling tools it relates to (get_hotlinks, update_hotlinks, delete_hotlinks, merge_file), so an agent can route correctly.

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 says what to do after placement: refresh with update_hotlinks, break linkage with delete_hotlinks {keepElements: true}, or use merge_file instead. It also states a hard exclusion (XRef/DWG attachment unavailable in the Archicad 26 API), which removes a whole class of failed calls.

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