add_linear_dimension

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. It only restates the action ('Add') without disclosing required inputs, side effects, coordinate system expectations, or whether it modifies an existing drawing/document.

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 description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than informative, so its brevity reflects missing content more than disciplined conciseness.

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 four undocumented parameters, nested point objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It gives the agent almost nothing beyond the tool name to invoke the tool 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% for four parameters (p1, p2, style, offset), including nested objects with x/y coordinates. The description provides no parameter meaning at all, leaving the agent unable to interpret p1, p2, offset, or style 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Add a linear dimension annotation'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it fails to differentiate from near-identical siblings such as 'add_dimension_linear' and 'add_aligned_dimension', leaving the agent unable to choose between them without opening schemas.

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 the many related dimension tools (aligned, angular, radius, diameter, ordinate, baseline, continued). Usage is only implied by the tool name, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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