add_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It doesn't say whether the drawing must be active, whether the view is attached to a parent, what view_type/direction values are valid, or what the call returns.

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, but it is also grammatically broken ('a add_view') and conveys almost no information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 tool with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is nowhere near adequate. An agent has no basis for supplying required or optional parameters 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% across 9 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Meanings of scale, center, cut_line, solid_id, direction, view_type, and parent_view_id are entirely undocumented in both places.

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 a add_view to a drawing' essentially restates the tool name and adds only the target resource (a drawing). It never explains what a 'view' is here or how this differs from siblings like add_section_view, add_detail_view, or add_auxiliary_view, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from those tools.

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 such as add_section_view or create_viewport. The only implied context is that a drawing must exist, which is not stated.

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