place_ikea_furniture

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: import only on first call, subsequent calls create lightweight instances, rotation is around world Z, and no arbitrary file paths. This helps an agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 three sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers key behaviors. It lacks error handling or prerequisite info (e.g., asset must be indexed), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to parameters: x,y,z as position in active document units, rotation_degrees as rotation around world Z, scale as scale factor, and asset_id as the IKEA asset identifier. This provides essential context beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool imports an IKEA SketchUp model as a reusable block and places an instance. It specifies the 'import only once' behavior and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_diagram_asset by referencing IKEA and SketchUp.

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 explains the tool's purpose and key behaviors (block reuse, instance creation, position units, rotation axis). It also notes it does not accept arbitrary file paths, implying when to use it for IKEA assets. However, it could be more explicit about alternatives or prerequisites.

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