创建盾构隧道独立管片

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

With annotations already declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the important behavioral detail that it uses a preview token and does not delete or overwrite existing elements. It also implies the requirement of a prior preview step, which is meaningful context beyond the hints. The description aligns with and complements the annotations without contradiction.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with a safety qualifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this scope.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow (preview token required) and safety property, but for a complex tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, it lacks a high-level explanation of how the tool fits into the segment creation process or how it contrasts with ring creation. It is minimally sufficient but leaves an agent to rely on parameter schemas for full understanding.

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 all 15 parameters are individually documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reiterating the preview token's role. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action (create), the target resource (individual family components per segment), and the context (current Revit project using a preview token). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_tunnel_rings by focusing on segments rather than rings, and the title reinforces this distinction. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the workflow by requiring a preview token, suggesting it should be called after preview_tunnel_segments, and states it operates in the current Revit project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_tunnel_rings. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the decision logic.

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