import_dwg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the conversion mechanism and the failure mode (errors if dwg2dxf is not installed), which are non-obvious behaviors. It does not state what entities are created, whether it mutates/clears the current drawing, or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then input options, then the failure/check note. No filler or repetition.

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 an import tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the inputs, mechanism, and failure mode adequately. It leaves unstated what happens on success (entities created, document state), which is the main remaining 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for two of three parameters ('path' = DWG on disk, 'content' = base64), which the bare schema types do not convey. It omits the 'encoding' enum parameter entirely, so it falls short of fully covering the inputs.

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 (import) and resource (DWG) and even discloses the mechanism (piping through LibreDWG's dwg2dxf), which implicitly differentiates it from import_dxf. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives like import_dxf or import_step, so it doesn't reach the top bar.

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?

It gives practical guidance on input selection ('Provide either path or content') and a prerequisite check ('run dwg_tools_status to check'), which is useful context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over import_dxf/import_step/import_iges, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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