Place a point at specified x and y coordinates on a CAD drawing, converting units to millimeters and assigning it to an existing or new layer.
Create a point at (x, y). Coordinates are converted from unit (default mm) to internal mm. Optional layer is a layer name (created if missing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: unit conversion to internal mm, the mm default, and the side effect that a missing layer is created. It omits other behavioral traits an agent would want, such as what the tool returns, whether it operates on a sketch plane or 3D space, and error handling.
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, front-loaded with the core action, then two focused notes on unit and layer behavior. No filler.
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 4-param creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parameter semantics but leaves return value, coordinate-space assumptions, and failure modes unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 4 params, so the description must compensate. It does explain `unit` (default mm, converted to internal mm) and `layer` (name, auto-created), but x/y formatting and the full semantics of the layer argument remain thin.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a point at (x, y)') with the geometry semantics made explicit, so an agent can distinguish it from create_line/create_circle without opening the schema. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling primitive creators.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the many other primitive-creation siblings (create_line, create_circle, create_box, etc.), and no prerequisites or context (e.g. active document/sketch) are given. Usage is only inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.