Linear Dimension

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a drawing entity, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It adds the ISO 129/ISO 286 tolerancing context, which is useful. It does not describe side effects or constraints like fit being mutually exclusive with tol_*, but the schema already covers those details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the action, the entity type, and the optional tolerance capability are all conveyed efficiently.

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 fully documents all 13 parameters and an output schema exists, so invocation details are largely covered. However, the description is too terse to fully contextualize tool selection given the large sibling list, especially the close neighbor dimension_aligned. It is adequate but leaves the selection guidance gap to the agent's inference.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a small amount of high-level context by mentioning ISO 129 and ISO 286 fit, which helps interpret the tolerance-related parameters, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a linear dimension.' It also notes optional tolerancing, which adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling dimension_aligned tool, relying on the name alone for that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dimension_aligned, dimension_angular, or dimension_radius. The description implies its use by naming 'linear dimension' but provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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