dxf_insert_support_symbol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is covered. The description adds useful behavior (block auto-creation if absent) and a caveat that pictograms are simplified and non-normative, but says nothing about what a destructive write overwrites or how output_path differs from in-place editing.

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 a usage block, parameter list, and a concrete example. The parameter list would be redundant against a described schema, but with 0% coverage it earns its place. Slightly long but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For an eight-parameter destructive mutation tool, the description covers purpose, usage, all parameter names, and an example. The main gap is the semantics of output_path versus in-place modification, which matters for a write tool.

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 load and does it well: it enumerates all eight parameters, supplies the kind values (GUIA, ANCORA, APOIO, MOLA) that the schema leaves as a free string, and explains size units/default and line meaning. Path, tag, layer and output_path are named but not elaborated.

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 ('Insere') and resource ('pictograma de suporte de tubulação'), enumerates the four kinds, and names the follow-up tool (dxf_read_attributes), so an agent can place it relative to siblings. No ambiguity about what is produced.

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 explicit 'QUANDO USAR' clause states the scenario (offline assembly of the support drawing/register) and notes the block SUP-<TIPO> is auto-created and later readable with dxf_read_attributes. Clear context, but no when-not or alternative-tool exclusions beyond the read counterpart.

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