add_auxiliary_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose mutation side effects, required permissions, how the drawing is affected, whether the operation is reversible, or any constraints. For a 9-parameter mutation tool, this is a severe gap.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes the only sentence on a tautology, leaving no room for useful information. The structure does not earn its place.

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?

Given 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It omits nearly everything an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description mentions none of the 9 parameters. It does not explain scale, center, cut_line, position, solid_id, direction, view_type, parent_view_id, or drawing_id. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Add a add_auxiliary_view to a drawing.' It gives a verb and resource but no meaningful definition of what an auxiliary view is or how it differs from sibling tools such as add_view, add_section_view, and add_detail_view. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like add_view, add_section_view, and add_detail_view are plausible alternatives, but the description does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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