nbc_dimension

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

Annotations provide no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does not disclose whether the tool creates, modifies, or queries dimension objects, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or state changes. The style parameters 'NBC ArchTick 45° DIMTAD 1' add config detail but no behavioral clarity.

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 compact and free of filler, but it reads as a telegraphic fragment rather than a structured explanation. The jargon-heavy trailing segment 'NBC ArchTick 45° DIMTAD 1' packs information densely without context. It is concise but under-specified.

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 a required 'operation' parameter, an opaque 'data' object, and no parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It offers domain context but omits operational details, acceptable values, and data structure expectations. The presence of an output schema helps return-value understanding but does not fill invocation gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'operation', 'data', and 'include_screenshot' parameters. It hints that dimension types are likely operation values, but it never explains the data object, required operation format, or screenshot flag. This is insufficient for correctly constructing arguments.

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 dimension annotations and enumerates specific subtypes—linear/aligned/angular/radius/leader—which differentiates it from sibling tools like nbc_wall or nbc_layer. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'create' or 'edit', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nbc_drawing, nbc_entity, or nbc_section. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and dimension-type list.

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