bridge_create_levels_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses useful behavior beyond the name: it imports via official IFC, verifies saved identities/heights, exports fresh grid coordinates, and removes its own carriers. However, it omits permissions, failure behavior, and what 'carriers' means, and the jargon is opaque.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the create action and containing no filler. But the second sentence is dense with unexplained jargon ('identities/heights', 'own carriers') that reduces usability rather than being efficiently concise.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified – parameter shapes, prerequisites, and error/side-effect semantics. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 coverage is 0% with three parameters (project, levels, grid), yet the description only alludes to elevation_mm inside levels and the optional orthogonal grid. The 'project' parameter and the structure/shape of the nested levels and grid objects are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

States a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('a NEW native .rnp with levels at explicit elevation_mm and optional orthogonal Axis grid'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from copy/save/inspect siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 trailing 'Does not modify existing level elevations' implies a when-not boundary (use something else to edit existing levels), but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use trigger is given. Usage is only implied.

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