Drawing Settings (read / change)

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

Annotations already signal read/write and non-destructive behavior, and the description goes beyond them by listing covered sysvars, explaining the no-arg snapshot mode, and adding the crucial nuance that dim_text_height/dim_arrow_size etc. shape dimensions while text_size affects standalone TEXT only and does not touch dimensions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and efficiently packed: purpose in the first sentence, context in the second, call modes in the third, and a focused clarifying note on dimension versus text settings. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It covers read/change modes, snapshot behavior, the friendly-key domain, and the potentially confusing dimension/text distinction. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the schema already describes the settings parameter, friendly keys, and an example. The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantic distinction between dimension-affecting keys and text_size. This earns a point above the baseline of 3.

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 clear and specific verb-resource pair: 'Read or change common AutoCAD drawing settings by friendly name.' It further clarifies that it is a convenience facade over system variables, which sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_get_variable and system_set_variable. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit call-mode guidance: 'Call with no argument to get a full snapshot' and 'pass a dict to CHANGE them.' The phrase 'without memorising sysvar names' implies when to prefer this tool over raw system-variable access. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or describe exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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