add_surface_finish_symbol

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 discloses nothing about whether this mutates the drawing, what permissions are needed, what the symbol attaches to, or how 'datum', 'roughness', and 'tolerance' affect the result. Total absence of behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it conveys no information beyond the name it echoes, so the brevity reflects missing 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?

Given 8 undocumented parameters, a nested position object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It gives an agent nothing to construct a valid call for what appears to be a drawing annotation operation.

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?

There are 8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, including a nested 'position' object and an open-ended 'options' object. The description adds zero meaning for any of them, so an agent cannot infer the role of entities, symbol, datum, roughness, or tolerance.

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 'Add symbol annotation add_surface_finish_symbol' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no explanation of what a surface finish symbol annotation is or what it accomplishes. Beyond the verb 'add', an agent learns nothing distinguishing this from siblings like add_weld_symbol or add_gdt_frame.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The many sibling annotation tools (add_leader, add_center_mark, add_gdt_frame) are not referenced, leaving the agent no basis for routing.

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