nx_create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuine behavioral detail beyond the schema: the '|' newline convention and the sheet-coordinate unit (mm). It does not disclose what happens if no drawing sheet is active, whether the note persists until nx_save_part, or whether the call is idempotent, which are material gaps for a document-mutating tool.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the two pieces of information an agent needs before calling. The worked example earns its space by demonstrating the delimiter convention that would otherwise be ambiguous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the format/coordinate details cover the core call. However, for a mutating drafting tool with zero annotation coverage, the description never states the prerequisite of an open drawing sheet or any failure behavior, leaving an agent unable to predict what happens on a bad call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the '|' delimiter rule for 'text' and the 'sheet coordinates (mm)' framing for pos_x/pos_y give real meaning that the bare schema titles do not. The default values (20, 20) and their origin are not explained, keeping it below a 5.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('technical-requirement / process text') with its target ('the current drawing sheet'), which is far more concrete than the sibling list alone would suggest. It implicitly separates itself from nx_create_dimension, nx_create_roughness and nx_create_title_block by naming the content type as free-form note text, though it never references those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'current drawing sheet', which signals this is a drafting-stage operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as nx_create_title_block or nx_create_roughness for other annotation types. Prerequisites (an active sheet created via nx_create_drawing_sheet) are left to inference.

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