add_scale_bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a mutation ('Add'), but does not describe side effects, whether the scale bar is created on a layout or model space, required drawing context, return behavior, or undo semantics.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is arguably too terse for a six-parameter nested-object tool with no schema descriptions, leaving necessary context absent.

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 six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It never explains coordinates, units, required drawing state, or the role of optional parameters such as segments, label, and layer.

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 six parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain drawing_id, position coordinates, segment_length units, segments count, label, or layer, leaving the agent to infer all parameter semantics from names and types alone.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('scale bar annotation') and scopes it to a 'map drawing.' This distinguishes it from other annotation tools like add_north_arrow or add_legend in practice, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from those siblings.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The phrase 'to a map drawing' provides minimal context, but an agent receives no instruction on when this scale bar tool should be chosen over related drawing/annotation tools.

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