design_set_construction_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that this is a mutating setter and explains the state semantics and partial states, but it omits permissions, reversibility, and what happens to existing geometry or elements at each state. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the value mapping. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 simple 2-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema cover what's needed to call it. It could be more complete regarding defaults (which building when layerId is omitted is only in the schema) and behavior on missing buildings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches the `state` parameter beyond the schema's bare "construction state 0-1" by mapping key values to concrete outcomes. Only `layerId` is left to the schema.

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 ("Set") and resource ("construction state of a building") and adds a concrete value-to-meaning mapping (0=foundation, 0.5=complete, etc.). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as design_add_construction_form, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation—you'd call this to change a building's stage of construction—but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. It also doesn't say prerequisites such as a building existing.

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