Diameter Dimension

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the burden of indicating mutation. It does clearly state that the tool creates a dimension and adds the behavioral nuance of optional tolerancing (e.g., ⌀20 H7). It does not describe side effects like layer handling or combination rules, but it is not misleading and adds some behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key tolerance capability in a compact example. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The schema comprehensively covers parameters and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. The description sufficiently orients the agent toward the operation and the tolerance feature. It is slightly terse regarding tolerance configuration options, but the schema fills that gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters in detail. The description adds a useful high-level example of tolerancing but does not explain individual parameters, which is acceptable because the schema already does that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a diameter dimension for a circle.' It clearly identifies the operation and the geometric target, and 'diameter' distinguishes it from siblings like dimension_radius, dimension_linear, and dimension_aligned without requiring the agent to open the schema.

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 intended use is implied: use this when a diameter dimension on a circle is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use alternatives such as dimension_radius or dimension_aligned, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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