catia_drawing_title_block

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

Annotations declare a safe (non-readonly, non-destructive) mutation, but the description adds real value beyond them: 'missing ones are refused' documents validation behavior, 'Nothing is invented: only what you pass is written' rules out defaulting/inference, and the return payload including ISO warnings is disclosed. Only minor gaps (e.g., error modes when no drawing is active) remain.

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?

Front-loaded with the drawn artifacts, then constraints, then behavior and return value — a sensible ordering. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause (mandatory vs optional, tolerance codes, no-invention rule, warnings) earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, validation, write semantics, and the returned structure, which is close to complete. It omits what happens if no drawing document is open or which drawing the block attaches to by default, 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 67% and the nested 'fields' object is opaque ('ISO 7200 field key -> text'), so the description carries the load by enumerating the eight mandatory keys and eight optional keys plus their semantics. It also states the general_tolerance values and default, which the schema only lists as an enum.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Draw the ISO 7200:2004 title block') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (block table, scale, ISO 2768 tolerance note, ISO 5456-2 projection symbol). This is unmistakably distinct from drawing siblings like catia_drawing_add_view or catia_drawing_add_dimension.

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?

Usage context is implied (a drawing must exist, mandatory fields are refused if missing) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing against alternatives such as catia_drawing_create or the other drawing_* tools. The agent must infer that this is a post-creation annotation step.

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