Radius Dimension

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds the 'optionally toleranced' detail, which is useful context, but it does not disclose placement behavior, interaction with existing dimensions, or other side effects.

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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the fully documented input schema, the presence of an output schema, and the simple annotation-creation nature of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps like dimension placement or leader behavior are reasonably left to the schema and output schema.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the 'optionally toleranced' hint, which loosely maps to the tol_* parameters, but adds little beyond schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('radius dimension'), and the target geometry ('circle or arc'), plus the optional tolerancing behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dimension_diameter and dimension_linear.

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 phrase 'for a circle or arc' provides clear context about when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the geometry context is enough for an agent to route correctly in most cases.

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