archicad_create_meshes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds value by disclosing that output is solid bodies, that a named layer can be created on demand, and that the operation is reversible via archicad_undo. It does not describe the return value or whether dryRun changes reporting, but that is minor given annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the purpose, scope, and use cases, followed by a short recovery hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, terrain semantics, layer behavior, and undo recovery. It omits the dryRun verification path and skirtLevel depth semantics, but those are documented in the schema, leaving only a small gap.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the most important semantics (z relative to level, per-point heights, layer naming). However, it adds no meaning for skirtLevel, floorIndex, or dryRun beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Creates) and resource (terrain Meshes) plus the key characteristic that differentiates it: heights per point, solid bodies, optional named layer. The concrete use cases (surveyed ground, paths, curbs) let an agent distinguish this from siblings like archicad_set_mesh and archicad_create_surface_morph.

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?

The description gives usage context (terrain modeling) and points to archicad_undo for reverting, which is useful. But it never states when to prefer this over archicad_set_mesh or archicad_create_surface_morph, and there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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