dxf_define_block

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so mutation is already known, but the description never says what gets destroyed or overwritten (e.g., an existing block of the same name) or how path vs output_path interact. It does add one useful behavioral constraint ('sem hatch/insert aninhado recomendado'), which slightly exceeds the annotation-only baseline.

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-loads purpose, then usage, params, and an example in clear labeled blocks. Slightly repetitive in re-listing parameters, but every section adds value and the example concretizes the entities/attributes format.

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 not be explained, and the description covers usage, params, and a worked example for a fairly complex nested-entities tool. Remaining gaps are name-collision/overwrite behavior and the path vs output_path contract, which are not addressed despite the destructive hint.

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 does list all five params with meaning: entities 'mesmo formato de dxf_add_entities', attributes as a list of tags with an example, plus path/name/output_path. output_path is named but its difference from path is never explained, leaving one param under-specified.

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 ('Define um bloco... em um DXF') and clarifies the two-step flow by naming the follow-up insert operation. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the insert_block/list_block_definitions siblings beyond pointing at dxf_add_entities type=insert.

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 explicit context with a concrete example (creating the SUP-GUIA support symbol with TAG/TIPO/LINHA offline). It provides clear when-to-use context but no exclusions or named alternatives for edge cases.

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