dxf_create_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates data. The description adds useful scope detail (viewports, paper, scale) but never explains why the operation is destructive, nor whether it modifies `path` in place versus writing to `output_path`, which matters for a destructive 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a clearly labeled QUANDO USAR line, a parameter line, and a concrete example. It is dense but every section earns its place; the long parameter line is slightly dense but justified at 0% schema coverage.

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 an output-schema-bearing tool, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, usage ordering, all parameters, and an example. The only real gap is the in-place vs output_path write behavior, which is not disambiguated.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates all seven parameters, gives the allowed paper values (A4–A0), and defines the nested viewport object fields (center, width, height, view_center, scale) including the non-obvious scale convention (0.01 = 1:100). The worked example reinforces the semantics.

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 layout (folha) de papel num DXF") plus the scope of what the layout contains (viewports framing the model at scale). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dxf_create or dxf_export.

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: montar a folha de impressão antes de dxf_export (PDF)" gives explicit ordering guidance and names the downstream sibling, which is exactly what an agent needs for sequencing. No when-not condition or exclusion is offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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