Create Multileader

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the leader is added to the active drawing, what happens if the drawing is not ready, or what the implementation-level distinction between COM and ezdxf means for the caller. The 'explicitly-labelled' phrase hints at a tagging behavior but never explains it.

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 and is front-loaded with the core action, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified: jargon such as 'native COM' and 'explicitly-labelled ezdxf composite' is included without explanation, which sacrifices usefulness for brevity.

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?

A multileader creation tool with six parameters needs more context than this. The description does not explain the two creation modes, the expected coordinate system, drawing state requirements, or the meaning of the labelled composite. Even though an output schema exists and would document return values, the callers still lack enough information to predict behavior and choose parameters confidently.

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 only 50%, and the description adds nothing about parameters. Three fields (arrow_size, landing_gap, text_height) have no schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining their units, defaults, or interactions. The schema's existing descriptions for text, layer, and points are clear, but the missing fields remain ambiguous.

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 names a clear verb and resource: it creates a multileader, and the MLeader concept is distinct from the sibling drawing/entity tools. However, the 'native COM MLeader or an explicitly-labelled ezdxf composite' phrasing introduces ambiguity about what the caller will actually get, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over entity_create_text, entity_create_mtext, dimension_auto, or other annotation tools. The description implies the use case only through the tool name and title, but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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