Split a wall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that the result is 'two joined walls', which clarifies the outcome. However, it doesn't disclose whether the original wall is deleted, how the join is represented, or any side effects. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key parameter constraint. Every word earns its place. It's concise and structured well.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers the core operation and parameter. However, for a destructive operation, it could mention what happens to the original wall or any prerequisites (e.g., wall must be selected). Given the output schema exists and the description is clear, it's adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters. The description adds the meaning of t as a normalized position (0..1) and the default 0.5, which is already in the schema. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema is complete.

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 and resource: 'Split a wall into two joined walls at t (0..1).' This clearly identifies the operation and its key parameter. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like merge_walls, but the verb 'split' and the mention of 'two joined walls' makes the purpose clear enough.

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 usage: splitting a wall at a normalized position t. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like merge_walls, but the context is clear. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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