add_detail_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: whether the drawing must already exist, whether the view is created immediately or batched, what happens if parent_view_id is omitted, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters this is a complete void.

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 waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The duplicated article in 'a add_detail_view' also suggests careless generation.

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 9-parameter, mutation-style drawing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and nested coordinate objects, the description supplies none of the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is effectively absent.

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?

With 9 parameters, nested objects (position, cut_line), and 0% schema description coverage, the description mentions zero parameters. An agent cannot know what scale, center, cut_line, direction, view_type, or parent_view_id mean or in what units they are expressed.

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 tautology: 'Add a add_detail_view to a drawing' simply restates the tool name and adds only the banal fact that it targets a drawing. It gives no indication of what a detail view is, how it differs from add_view, add_section_view, or add_auxiliary_view, and contains a grammatical redundancy that signals it was auto-generated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (add_view, add_section_view, add_auxiliary_view, create_viewport, update_drawing_views). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no workflow context.

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