add_ordinate_dimension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, required coordinate frame, mutation impact, undo behavior, or what happens if the dimension references invalid points.

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 under-specified rather than concise. For a mutation tool with three required parameters and nested objects, this level of brevity omits information the agent needs to call it correctly.

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, and zero parameter description coverage in the schema, the description is completely inadequate for this tool. It leaves the agent without guidance on required inputs, coordinate semantics, or behavioral effects.

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 meaning for any of the three required parameters (point, datum_point, axis). It does not explain the coordinate expectations, the role of the datum point, or the axis enum beyond what the schema already shows.

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 an ordinate dimension.' An agent can tell this creates an ordinate dimension, but the description does not differentiate it from the many sibling dimension tools such as add_aligned_dimension or add_baseline_dimension.

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 about when to use an ordinate dimension versus other dimension types, nor any prerequisites or contextual conditions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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