dxf_modify_entities

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that by noting output_path is 'recommended: salva cópia', which implies edits otherwise happen in place on the source file, and by scoping attributes to blocks only. It still doesn't state reversibility or undo behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The text is front-loaded (purpose, then when-to-use, then a parameter digest, then a worked example) and each block earns its place. The example is genuinely useful for invocation. Minor redundancy between the parameter list and the example keeps it from a 5.

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 a 10-parameter destructive mutation tool with an output schema and annotations available, the description covers purpose, usage context, per-parameter semantics, and an example. What's missing is an explicit statement of in-place/destructive behavior and sibling differentiation, but the essentials an agent needs to call it are present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description carries the burden and does so well: it gives formats/constraints for translate [dx,dy,dz], rotate_deg (+ rotate_center), scale (>0), attributes {"TAG":"S-01"} (blocks only), and flags output_path as recommended. Only color and layer semantics remain vague, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Altera entidades de um DXF') plus the resource and enumerates the modification kinds (layer, color, move, rotate, scale, block attributes), so an agent immediately grasps what it does. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from similarly-scoped siblings like move_entity or update_block_attributes, so it does not reach a 5.

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 supplies a concrete context (batch adjustments: changing support layers, shifting a segment, fixing a TAG), which is implied-to-clear usage guidance. However, it names no alternatives and does not tell the agent when to prefer this over single-purpose siblings such as move_entity or update_block_attributes, leaving the batch-vs-single distinction to inference.

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