add_section_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether this mutates the drawing, requires a specific drawing state, how the cut_line/direction/view_type interact, or what the result is.

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 brief, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — it is a duplicated-word tautology with no informational content.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably invoke it.

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 9 parameters, including ambiguous ones like direction, view_type, solid_id, parent_view_id, and the nested cut_line array of positions. The description supplies zero clarification, leaving the agent with no way to populate these correctly.

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 is a circular restatement of the tool name ('Add a add_section_view to a drawing'), which conveys no meaning an agent couldn't already infer. It fails to explain what a section view is or how it differs from the many sibling view-creation tools (add_view, add_detail_view, add_auxiliary_view, create_viewport).

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 add_view, add_detail_view, or add_auxiliary_view, nor any mention of prerequisites such as requiring an existing drawing or cut line. The agent is left entirely to inference.

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