archicad_set_mesh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: it operates even on locked layers, performs a 3D result check, and is reversible via archicad_undo — consistent with destructiveHint=false. It still does not say how conflicting/unspecified fields are handled.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core effect is front-loaded and the recovery instruction follows immediately.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, its lock-layer behavior, and the revert path. It stops short of describing interaction between the geometry parameters (polygon vs holes vs sublines) or partial-update semantics, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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%, so every parameter (guid, holes, level, dryRun, polygon, sublines, skirtLevel) is already documented. The description mentions level, skirt depth and holes but adds no syntax, units, or coordinate-frame detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Changes) and resource (a Mesh (terrain)) and enumerates the exact aspects modified: level, skirt depth and holes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like archicad_create_meshes, archicad_set_slab_levels, and archicad_move_elements.

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 only implied: the description names the target object and a revert path (archicad_undo), but never says when to choose this over archicad_create_meshes or how it relates to other element-editing tools. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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