Embed an appliance or sink

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the actual behavior: the item becomes part of the host and moves with it, the sink/cooktop fixture is not drawn generically, and errors explain required corrections. This gives an agent a concrete model of side effects and failure-mode communication.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, covering purpose, variants, behavior, error handling, and expected reply structure in a compact paragraph. It contains a small amount of output-format redundancy since an output schema exists, but no sentence is wasted or filler.

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 9-parameter tool with a rich output schema and full schema descriptions, the prose is nearly complete: it identifies hosts, item types, dimensional behavior, default z placement, and error style. Minor gaps remain only around explicit exclusions or further catalog item categories such as TV.

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 the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds a useful restatement of the item-vs-cat model and notes z defaults, but it does not substantively explain parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Embed') and resource ('an item into joinery'), then enumerates exact application scenarios: sink/cooktop into countertop, appliance into cabinet niche, TV onto slatted panel. This level of specificity distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like place or move, which would not imply host integration.

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 clear contextual guidance: which tool scenario applies to countertops, cabinet niches, and slatted panels, and how to supply an existing item vs a new catalog item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the intended usage is strongly implied and hard to confuse.

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