Create multileader annotations in AutoCAD drawings by specifying points, content, and style to label or point to drawing features.
Add a multileader annotation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | ||
| points | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| annotation | 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. 'Add' implies a mutation/creation, but nothing is said about required context (active document/layer), what the new entity is attached to, or side effects; for a 0%-annotated mutation tool this is a significant 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?
A single clean sentence with no padding and no wasted clauses, so it is not verbose. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds almost nothing, so it is terse to the point of under-specification.
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?
Given four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent has no basis for supplying style, content, annotation, or the points structure 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% and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The four params -- style, points, content, annotation -- are undocumented, and the meaning of points (minItems 2, arrow vs. landing locations) and the content/annotation overlap are left entirely ambiguous.
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 (Add) and resource (multileader annotation), which is a distinct CAD entity type. However, it does not differentiate this from the very similar sibling add_leader or from related annotation tools like add_text/add_mtext, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 and no mention of when to prefer add_multileader over add_leader, add_text, or the various add_*_dimension tools. The description contains zero routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.