design_add_construction_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a 'guide layer' is produced; it says nothing about whether a new layer is added to the stack, whether existing construction guides are replaced, or whether the layer is locked/editable afterward.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the form-type inventory. Nothing redundant for a tool of this scope.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with a nested position object and no annotations or output schema, the schema covers parameter details thoroughly, but the description leaves the layer lifecycle (creation semantics, stacking, interaction with other construction guides) unexplained.

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% — every parameter including nested position and all rotation axes has a range and default documented in the schema. The description only restates the formType enum, adding no semantics about how size vs. sizeX/Y/Z interact.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Add a 3D construction form guide layer', plus an enumeration of the six supported primitives. An agent can tell this creates a form-guide layer rather than a full scene (design_add_construction_scene) or cross-contours, though the sibling distinction is left implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this versus design_add_construction_scene, design_add_form_intersection, design_add_envelope, or design_add_cross_contours, all of which live in the same construction family. The list of form types is descriptive, not prescriptive about selection conditions.

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