dxf_create_layer

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: '(ou confirma)' signals idempotent ensure-semantics, and output_path 'salva cópia, preserva o original' discloses that a copy can be written preserving the source (implying in-place mutation otherwise). The destructive nature itself is left to annotations.

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?

Well-structured with labelled sections (purpose, QUANDO USAR, Parâmetros, Exemplo) and front-loaded purpose. Every line earns its place; the example is genuinely useful. Minor redundancy in restating the tool name in the example.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, usage timing, param meanings, and a call example, making it usable as-is. It could yet clarify required-vs-optional params and destructive in-place 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 must compensate, and it largely does: it names all five parameters and enriches them (color = ACI 1-255, linetype example 'DASHED', output_path semantics). It does not distinguish required (path, name) from optional/defaulted params, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource: 'Cria (ou confirma) uma camada em um DXF.' An agent can immediately tell this creates/ensures a layer. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling create_layer, so sibling ambiguity remains.

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' line gives clear context: prepare layers (SUPORTES, COTAS, EIXOS) before drawing. This tells the agent the correct phase to invoke it. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., create_layer) is given, so not a 5.

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