add_dimension

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, notably that the operation is undoable with Ctrl+Z and that the active DIMSTYLE controls style/size and is not modified by the tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then structured into usage and per-type parameter guidance. Despite covering nine parameters and five dimension kinds, it avoids wasted sentences and the example makes the invocation pattern concrete.

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?

Given the complex kind-dependent parameter model, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description covers creation, undoability, usage context, parameter mapping, and DIMSTYLE behavior.

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 carries the full burden. It compensates excellently by mapping parameters per dimension type: linear, aligned, radius, diameter, and angular each get their required parameters, along with an optional layer and an example call.

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 and resource: 'Cria uma cota nativa (entidade DIMENSION) no espaço modelo.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from generic drawing primitives, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool dxf_add_dimensions.

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?

The 'QUANDO USAR' section gives clear usage context: dimensioning distances between supports, diameters, radii, and angles directly in the open drawing. It does not state when not to use the tool or name an alternative such as dxf_add_dimensions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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