Rocky Import Wall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether import creates one wall per body, whether existing walls are preserved, or what happens with unsupported formats. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the mutation semantics remain 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined compression.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves out prerequisite state (project open?), the implied multi-wall behavior suggested by name_prefix, and any failure handling for unsupported geometry formats. Rich schema and output schema cover much of the surface, but the behavioral gap is still material.

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 path, scale, and name_prefix are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb ("Import") with a concrete resource ("a geometry file as a Rocky wall"), which lets an agent tell it apart from construction siblings like rocky_create_surface. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open first), and no alternatives such as rocky_create_surface for other wall-building paths. The agent must infer all routing decisions from sibling names alone.

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