add_diameter_dimension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no statement about whether this mutates the drawing, creates an annotation entity, requires a valid circle_id, or is undoable. An 'add' verb implies creation, but nothing about side effects or failure modes is given.

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 short sentence is trim and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no waste because there is almost no content.

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 mutation tool with a nested-object parameter, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, a four-word description is insufficient. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this 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% and the description documents neither parameter. The agent must infer that circle_id references a circle entity and that leader_point is the nested {x,y} location for the dimension leader, with no help from either the schema or the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('add a diameter dimension'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling dimension tools, most notably the near-identical 'add_dimension_diameter', leaving the agent unable to tell which one to pick.

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 at all. The description does not say when a diameter dimension is preferable to add_radius_dimension, add_aligned_dimension, or the redundant add_dimension_diameter sibling, nor does it state prerequisites such as an existing circle.

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