add_weld_symbol

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 delivers nothing. It does not state whether this mutates the drawing, what permissions are needed, what happens to the symbol after placement, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a serious omission.

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 short sentence with no waste, so it is concise. However, the conciseness is achieved through under-specification rather than efficiency, and the sentence awkwardly repeats the tool name as its own object ('Add symbol annotation add_weld_symbol').

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 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects, the description should carry substantial weight. It provides essentially nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly, falling far short of the complexity of the tool.

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 8 parameters, including nested objects (position with x/y) and an open-ended options object. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving all eight parameters undocumented. The description had a clear opportunity to explain symbols, datum, tolerance, roughness, and the position object but did not.

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 verb and a resource ('Add symbol annotation'), which is enough to identify the operation. However, it provides no sibling differentiation, which matters because the sibling list contains many annotation-adding tools like add_surface_finish_symbol, add_gdt_frame, add_center_mark, and add_center_line. An agent cannot tell from this text what distinguishes a weld symbol from these other annotation types.

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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites. Given the dense population of annotation tools in the sibling list, the absence of routing guidance is a meaningful gap, though the tool name itself provides some directional signal.

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