set_entity_lineweight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Display metadata' usefully signals that geometry is unaffected, but it omits everything else an agent needs: whether the change is persistent, whether it requires an undo checkpoint or transaction, what valid lineweight values or units are accepted (e.g. ByLayer/ByBlock sentinels), and what happens on invalid input.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately sized. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a verbosity problem.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine accepted value ranges, identifier format, persistence/undo behavior, or error handling from either the description or the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. It never explains that 'entity_ids' are handles/identifiers of existing entities or that 'lineweight' is a numeric value with an expected range and special-value semantics; the phrase 'one or more' is the only added meaning.

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 specific verb ('Set') and resource ('entity lineweight display metadata'), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling setters like set_entity_color, set_entity_linetype, and set_entity_property. However, it does not name those siblings or explain how this differs from the generic set_entity_property alternative.

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 set_entity_property or set_entity_layer. The only usage hint is 'one or more entities,' which implies batch application but is not framed as guidance.

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