place_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses coordinate units (decimal feet), rotation units (degrees), error behavior (error lists available names), return value contents (id, actual location, applied/rejected properties), and a critical constraint (does NOT load families not already in the project). This is rich, behavior-disclosing context.

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 efficiently organized: a clear one-sentence purpose, usage guidance, key notes, return information, a constraint, and then a well-formatted Args list. Every sentence contributes value with no repetition or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, units, error handling, return values, caveats, and parameter semantics. The user is fully equipped to decide when to use it and how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args list explains every parameter: family_name with example, type_name default, x/y/z units, rotation in degrees, level_name reference to list_levels, and properties with an example. This fully adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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: 'Place one instance of a loadable family at a point.' It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming create_line_based_element and create_surface_based_element for other element types, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 gives clear when-to-use context ('furniture, doors, windows, columns, equipment') and explicit alternatives for walls, beams, pipes, floors, and ceilings. It also tells the user to obtain family_name and type_name from list_families first and references list_levels, providing actionable guidance.

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