Add Circle

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

With no informative annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc. are all false/neutral), the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Save it in place' usefully communicates persistent in-place mutation of the editable copy, but it does not mention side effects like layer creation, coordinate-system behavior, or failure modes.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action 'Draw a circle' and immediately giving the relevant context of the editable copy. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple geometric-add tool with a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description plus schema is mostly complete for invocation. The only notable gap is the absence of sibling routing guidance, but that is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the nested input schema already documents file_path, center, radius, and layer with helpful descriptions. Even though the schema coverage signal is 0%, the actual schema provides the needed semantics, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 action ('Draw a circle') and the target resource ('the editable copy'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cad_add_line and cad_add_arc. It does not explicitly mention the DXF entity type or contrast itself with those siblings, but the intended operation 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cad_add_line, cad_add_arc, or cad_add_text. The phrase 'on the editable copy' implies a prior workflow step, but there is no explicit context or exclusion that would help an agent choose among the add_* siblings.

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