pls_create_building

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the need for a confirmation parameter and mentions the return format. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or behavior beyond what is already in the schema. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a score of 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 brief, consisting of a header, parameter note, return format, and a hint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the hint and return format could be better integrated, but overall it is efficient and clear.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain how to use the parameters to create a building, nor does it leverage the openWorldHint annotation. The return structure is vaguely defined. In the context of many siblings, no differentiation is provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds a useful hint about only passing required fields ('确认+只传必填字段') and notes that confirm is mandatory. This provides guidance beyond the schema alone, justifying a score above the baseline 3.

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's purpose: '创建楼栋实体' (create building entity). The tool name matches, and it avoids tautology. However, it does not distinguish from sibling create tools like pls_create_tag or pls_create_person, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 includes a vague hint ('确认+只传必填字段') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling create tools, and no comparison or context is given. The agent receives no help in choosing this tool over others.

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