add_leader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the leader is attached to existing geometry, whether the operation is reversible, or what the call returns. Only the bare implication of a write operation is conveyed.

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 sentence is short, but it is not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified rather than economical. There is no front-loaded scoping or actionable information beyond 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a large set of similar sibling tools, the definition is inadequate for correct invocation. An agent cannot determine valid inputs or how this leader differs from the multileader alternative.

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 four parameters, and the description explains none of them. Critical semantics such as requiring at least two points, the meaning of the opaque 'annotation' string, or allowed 'style' values are left entirely undocumented.

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 states a verb and resource ("Add a leader annotation"), so the basic action is identifiable, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no distinguishing detail. Siblings such as add_multileader, add_text, and add_mtext make it important to say what kind of leader this creates, which is not done.

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 add_leader versus add_multileader or the text/dimension tools. No prerequisites (e.g., an existing annotation handle, an active drawing) are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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