Insert a GD&T frame annotation into a CAD drawing to attach symbols, tolerances, and datum references to selected entities or positions.
Add symbol annotation add_gdt_frame.
| 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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no statement of whether the frame is attached to entities, whether it requires a datum, what happens with the 'datum'/'symbol' fields, or any side effects. For an 8-parameter drawing-annotation mutation this is a serious 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?
It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. A single sentence that merely echoes the tool name 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?
For an 8-parameter annotation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is present.
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 (position, options) and semantically loaded fields like datum, symbol, roughness, and tolerance. The description adds no meaning for any of them, leaving the agent to guess field formats and valid values.
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 tautology, restating the tool name with the words 'Add symbol annotation' appended. It never explains what a GDT (geometric dimensioning and tolerancing) frame is, nor distinguishes it from the many adjacent annotation siblings such as add_surface_finish_symbol, add_weld_symbol, or add_center_mark.
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, when not to, or which sibling annotation tool to prefer. The agent is given nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.