archicad_set_slab_levels

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it verifies the result in 3D and states the operation is reversible via archicad_undo. It does not mention the dryRun affordance or permissions, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded with the action first and the recovery note second. 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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and reversibility. It could mention the dryRun safety option explicitly, but the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 all eight parameters (topLevel, thickness, keepBottom, dryRun, elements, layer, elementType, selectedOnly) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter detail, 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 and resource ('changes the top level and/or thickness of slabs') and clarifies the intent with a concrete example ('the height of site masses'). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like archicad_create_slabs or 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?

Offers recovery guidance by naming archicad_undo as the revert path, which is useful context for a mutation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use conditions or alternatives (e.g. when to prefer this over archicad_set_mesh).

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