add_center_mark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the mark is associative to entities, whether it needs a datum or circle reference, whether it is undoable, or what it returns. For an 8-parameter mutation tool this is a complete 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 description is a single clause and technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy: it is too short to be useful and wastes the space on a restatement of the 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?

Given 8 undocumented parameters, nested objects, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, the definition is entirely inadequate; an agent could not invoke this tool correctly from the definition alone.

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, and the description supplies no meaning for datum, symbol, options, entities, position, circle_id, roughness, or tolerance. An agent has no way to know what values are expected, especially for the nested position object and the free-form options map.

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 'Add symbol annotation add_center_mark' merely restates the tool name with the word 'symbol annotation' appended; it does not explain what a center mark is or how it differs from siblings such as add_center_line, add_surface_finish_symbol, or add_weld_symbol. It is essentially a tautology.

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 versus the many other annotation tools (add_center_line, add_gdt_frame, etc.), nor any prerequisites or context of use. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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