add_aligned_dimension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not units, not whether the annotation is placed on a layer, not how the offset distances the dimension from the geometry, and not whether p1/p2 are measurement points or extension-line endpoints.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

A mutating CAD tool with three required parameters, nested objects, zero schema documentation, and no annotations or output schema requires far more explanation than one tautological sentence. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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 0% across three required parameters, including a nested p1/p2 object with x/y coordinates and an offset scalar. The description explains none of them, so the agent cannot know what geometry p1/p2 reference or how offset is interpreted or oriented.

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 is a direct restatement of the tool name: 'Add an aligned dimension annotation' for add_aligned_dimension. It adds no distinguishing detail versus siblings such as add_angular_dimension, add_linear_dimension, or add_ordinate_dimension, which share the identical 'Add a ... dimension annotation' pattern.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an aligned dimension is preferred over the linear, baseline, or continued dimension siblings. The agent gets no basis for choosing this tool over its near-identical neighbours.

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