Fit walls to the roof

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavior beyond that: shapes are modified in specific ways, elements continue to follow roof changes in the same undo step, and 'off' stops that behavior. This explains the persistence and undo semantics that raw annotations don't convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives examples and behavior. It is somewhat dense, with parentheticals and semicolons, but each clause adds a distinct fact. It could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning, so a 4.

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 an output schema present, the description covers the main effects, dynamic roof-following, undo, and off behavior. It omits prerequisites such as requiring a roof above or a note on unsupported roof types, but these are not critical given the schema and annotations. Overall adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% field descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'walls, glass and panels' and adds 'joinery slatted panel' as a specific id type, but it does not add meaningful detail about 'ids', 'off', or 'above' beyond the schema. It neither elevates nor degrades parameter understanding.

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 opens with an explicit verb and resource: 'Fit walls, glass and panels to the roof above them'. It then details concrete transformations (sloping top, split at ridge, triangle/trapezoid, slats cut), making the primary purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like split_wall or merge_walls, but the purpose is clear without that.

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 implies when to use the tool – when walls/panels should conform to a roof – but does not state exclusions or direct the agent to alternative tools for non-roof modifications. It contains no explicit 'when not' or sibling references, leaving usage guidance less explicit than it could be.

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