Creates shear walls, pile caps, and pad or strip footings in one transaction at a specified level.
Creates shear walls, pile caps and pad/strip footings in one transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pile_caps | No | ||
| level_name | Yes | ||
| shear_walls | No | ||
| pad_footings | No | ||
| strip_footings | No | ||
| wall_height_mm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered externally. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying all creations happen 'in one transaction,' but it does not explain what destructive effects may occur, how duplicates are handled, or what happens on partial failure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a complex 6-parameter destructive batch operation.
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 destructive batch-creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and overlapping sibling tools, the description is too incomplete. It does not cover required inputs, parameter formats, transactional failure behavior, or why an agent should choose it over alternatives.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only maps the resource categories to some parameters and does not explain the required 'level_name', the default 'wall_height_mm', or the expected structure of the object arrays.
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 names a specific verb ('Creates') plus the exact structural resources ('shear walls, pile caps and pad/strip footings'), so the tool's purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the overlapping sibling 'batch_create_footings_and_walls'.
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 phrase 'in one transaction' implies atomic batch creation, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling batch tools such as 'batch_create_footings_and_walls' or 'batch_create_structural_framing_and_columns'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.