Update zones (re-detect boundaries)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains the temporary-zone mechanism, that 'recreate' yields NEW GUIDs and loses associative labels, and that dryRun is non-mutating. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before choosing a method.

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 purpose and the manual-zone exclusion, then defaults, then method tradeoffs, then return shape — a logical ordering with no filler. It is dense and long as a single block, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries decision-relevant 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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: default targeting, the semantics and risk of each method, the dryRun escape hatch, and even the result shape (status values, before/after areas, verified, newGuid). Nothing needed to call it safely is absent.

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 already 100%, yet the description still adds meaning the schema cannot: the semantic difference between copyBoundary (GUID-preserving) and recreate (GUID-breaking, label-losing), the default scope of zones/stories, and what dryRun actually reports. This is above the baseline-3 case where the schema carries the load.

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 (re-detect zone boundaries) with the Archicad menu equivalent, and explicitly scopes it to AUTOMATIC zones while naming modify_zones for manual ones and get_zones as the sibling reader. An agent can distinguish it from every neighboring zone tool without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: after walls/columns/separators change, default target set (all automatic zones, narrowable via zones/stories), and a clear fallback rule for method='recreate' (only if copyBoundary errors or returns verified:false). It also states the exclusion (manual zones skipped) and points to the alternative.

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