Trim elements to roof/shell

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the default keep-part-below/inside behavior, the fact that per-element results can contain errors, and that undo is available via remove_trim. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, so it stops 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core operation and then details modes, return shape, and undo. It is somewhat long, yet every sentence adds actionable information; there is little wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape ({results: [{guid, trimmedBy} | {guid, error}]}) and the undo path. Together with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and understand consequences.

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 baseline is 3. The description meaningfully adds operational semantics beyond the schema, especially the interaction between elements, trimWith, and trimType, and the default behavior when trimWith is omitted.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Trims construction elements ... to a Roof or Shell', and enumerates the element types affected (walls, columns, beams, slabs, roofs, shells, curtain walls, windows/doors/skylights). It also distinguishes the operation from the undo sibling by naming remove_trim, so an agent can identify it without opening other 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?

It clearly explains the two operating modes: with trimWith, elements are trimmed by the given roof/shell; without trimWith, roofs/shells in elements trim the other elements. It also gives a concrete example ('cut gable walls to the roof slope') and points to remove_trim for undo, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other modification tools.

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