Add a map legend annotation to a CAD drawing, listing domain layers or categories at a specified position. Use it to label grouped map data for clear interpretation.
Add a simple map legend annotation listing domain layers or categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| layer | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| drawing_id | Yes |
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 burden. It implies a mutating annotation insert but says nothing about required preconditions (drawing_id must exist), whether the legend is undoable/removable, how layer/title affect placement, or what happens with duplicate or invalid items.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is appropriately short, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail elsewhere.
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?
A mutation tool with 5 parameters (3 required, nested position object), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. One sentence cannot cover the preconditions and parameter meaning an agent needs to call this correctly.
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%, so the description must explain 5 parameters and it explains essentially none. 'domain layers or categories' loosely maps to the items array, but drawing_id, position (x/y), layer, and title are entirely unelaborated.
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+resource ('Add a ... map legend annotation') plus its content scope ('listing domain layers or categories'). It distinguishes itself reasonably from add_north_arrow/add_scale_bar by describing what the annotation contains, though it never names a sibling.
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, no prerequisites, no alternatives. The word 'simple' hints at a scope boundary but never says when a different legend approach or tool is warranted, nor whether a drawing/layout must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.