dxf_add_entities

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: atomic all-or-nothing semantics ('Valida tudo antes de salvar: se uma entidade falhar, nada é gravado') and the layout default ('omita para o modelo'), which materially affect how the agent should call it.

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 purpose, then clearly partitioned into usage, parameters, field reference, and example. Dense but every section earns its place; no filler sentences.

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-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, atomicity, parameter roles, and per-entity structure. Minor gaps remain around path preconditions and what output_path does when set vs. omitted.

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 carry the burden, and it largely does: it documents path, entities (list of objects with a 'type' key), layout (omit for model space), output_path, plus per-entity field shapes and a concrete example. It falls short of explaining output_path behavior (in-place vs. new file) or path format requirements.

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 ('Adiciona em lote entidades a um DXF') and enumerates all ten supported entity types, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It only implicitly differentiates itself from single-entity siblings like draw_line/draw_circle via the 'em lote' (batch) framing rather than naming them.

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?

'QUANDO USAR: desenhar offline' is a terse, somewhat vague usage cue that doesn't name an alternative or state when NOT to use the tool. The batch framing implies the right context (multiple entities vs. the single-entity draw_* siblings), but the agent must infer that routing decision itself.

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