Creates center line symbol annotations on CAD entities so technical drawings show symmetry axes, hole centers, or datum references at a chosen position.
Add symbol annotation add_center_line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datum | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| options | No | ||
| entities | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| circle_id | No | ||
| roughness | No | ||
| tolerance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, whether the annotation is associative, how it interacts with selected entities, or what permissions or context are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical 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 sentence is short but fails because it is under-specified rather than concise; it omits information an agent needs. The wording 'Add symbol annotation add_center_line' also awkwardly duplicates the tool name.
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?
This is a complex, 8-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides no compensating detail. It is completely inadequate for an agent 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% across 8 parameters, including nested objects like position and options, and the description does not mention a single parameter. There is no explanation of what datum, symbol, roughness, tolerance, or circle_id control, leaving the agent entirely dependent on raw property names.
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 essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding only the generic category 'symbol annotation.' It does not specify what a center line is, what the resulting entity looks like, or how it differs from siblings like add_center_mark or the dimension tools. An agent cannot confidently choose this over the many other annotation tools.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling to prefer for related tasks such as center marks or dimensions. The single word 'Add' implies a creation action but provides no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.