Activate an already-open AutoCAD document by exact name or full path to switch drawing context and update the active binding. Does not open files; use document listing to find the target.
Activate an already-open AutoCAD document by its exact name or full path and update the binding to that document. Does not open files. Use autocad_list_documents to identify the target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation requires an already-open document and that it 'updates the binding' to the target, but says nothing about failure behavior when the name matches nothing, whether the prior binding is lost, or any permission requirements — notable gaps for a state-changing operation.
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?
Three short sentences, no waste, with the core action and its key constraint ('does not open files') front-loaded before the pointer to the lookup tool.
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 one-parameter activation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, the precondition, and how to obtain the argument. Only failure/edge-case behavior is absent, which is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: the document argument accepts an 'exact name or full path' (and must be exact), which is meaningful disambiguation not present in the bare string schema.
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?
Specific verb (activate) plus resource (an already-open AutoCAD document), with the scope qualifier 'already-open' and 'Does not open files'. This cleanly distinguishes it from any file-opening sibling and from autocad_attach/detach.
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?
States the precondition (document must already be open, this does not open files) and routes the agent to autocad_list_documents to find the target. It gives clear context but does not explicitly contrast with autocad_attach or autocad_detach, which are the nearest ambiguous siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.