TitleBlock: ISO A3

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

Discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: title text is used verbatim with no LLM transformation, the border frames the printed sheet rather than the model, and the current space is restored afterward. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs and none contradict the 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?

Three focused sentences: the specification is stated first, followed by the essential layout nuance and the restoration guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

Behavioral guidance is solid and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the tool has 15 parameters and very low schema coverage, and the description leaves most parameter semantics to inference. It also does not mention prerequisites like an open drawing or explicitly pointing to layout_create, though the schema does reference layout_create.

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?

The description adds value for 'title' (verbatim usage) and 'layout' (paper-space behavior and space restoration), but schema coverage is only 20% across 15 parameters. Most parameters such as date, scale, units, origin_x, origin_y, material, revision, and checked_by receive no semantic elaboration, so the description does not compensate for the low 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 clearly identifies the resource as an ISO 7200 / A3 (420x297 mm) title block and implies the operation of applying/creating it. It does not explicitly state an action verb like 'creates' or 'applies', and it does not contrast with sibling tools, but the title and context make the purpose 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?

The description gives strong when-to-use guidance: pass 'layout' when the title block belongs on a paper-space layout, and explains why it belongs there (it frames the printed sheet, not the model). It also reassures that the current space is restored. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but no sibling tool appears to duplicate title-block creation.

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