Highlight failing elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the Tapir add-on dependency and makes the visual side effect explicit. However, it doesn't disclose whether previous highlights are cleared, whether selection is affected, or if a visible view is required.

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?

Single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the dependency placed parenthetically. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple visual operation with one required parameter, the description captures the essential purpose and prerequisite. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics for port and no notes on side effects make it less complete than an agent would ideally need. Output schema presumably covers return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies rule_id selects the rule but doesn't explain how to obtain or format it. The optional port parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 specific action ('highlight'), object ('elements failing a rule'), and location ('in the Archicad window'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_rule or create_issues_from_failures, which operate on failures differently.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(requires Tapir add-on)' is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. No mention of using it after run_rule or choosing it over create_issues_from_failures.

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