archicad_create_surface_morph

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description needn't repeat that; instead it adds the undo-based rollback path and clarifies that the surface will visually read differently from the underlying mesh. It stops short of noting the dryRun preview capability or any model-side side effects.

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; the purpose and the visual differentiator are front-loaded, with the rollback tip as a compact trailing note.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and annotations that only cover safety, the description conveys purpose, differentiator, and recovery, which is largely sufficient. It leaves the dryRun preview and the triangles/faces interplay to the schema, a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 86%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description only echoes two of them implicitly ('from triangles', 'building material') and adds nothing about the triangles-vs-faces distinction, solid mode, or dryRun. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Creates a Morph surface from triangles'), names the key differentiating payload ('its own building material'), and contrasts it with the mesh sibling ('so it reads differently from the mesh below'). An agent can distinguish it from archicad_create_meshes/archicad_set_mesh without opening the 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?

It supplies a recovery path ('Revert with archicad_undo') and an implicit use case ('a path draped on terrain'), but never explicitly states when to choose this over archicad_create_meshes or archicad_set_mesh, nor any prerequisites such as selection or layer requirements. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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