dxf_create

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond annotations: it creates an empty file with default dimension/linetype styles, works offline, and notes overwrite defaults to false, which clarifies the write/destructive nature.

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 purpose sentence followed by labeled WHEN-TO-USE, Parameters, and Example sections. Every line earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Purpose, trigger, full parameter semantics, and a usage example together give an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 and it does: it lists all four params and supplies the enum-like values (mm, cm, m, in, ft), the version range (R2000..R2018), the .dxf extension for path, and the overwrite default. This adds substantial meaning the schema lacks.

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 ('Cria um DXF novo e vazio') with a distinguishing scope qualifier ('sem abrir o AutoCAD') and notes the default styles included. It slots itself into the flow by naming dxf_add_entities as the fill step, so an agent can separate it from other creation siblings.

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' block gives an explicit trigger (start an offline drawing such as a support schematic or detail sheet) and names the follow-up tool dxf_add_entities. Clear context, though it offers no when-not-to-use or contrasting alternative for online/AutoCAD scenarios.

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