nx_create_title_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses coordinate semantics but not that this is a mutating operation on the sheet, whether it replaces or duplicates an existing title block, or whether it requires an active sheet — all material gaps for a no-annotation write 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the coordinate guidance. No filler, and the example is the most useful payload for a caller picking numbers.

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 no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter placement. However, the absence of annotations means the description should have covered the prerequisite (an existing drawing sheet) and the mutation behavior on repeat calls; those omissions leave it only minimally complete.

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, and it does: it gives units (mm), the coordinate frame (sheet coordinates), and a concrete worked example (pos_x=340, pos_y=5 for A3 landscape). That is real added meaning over bare `number` defaults, though it doesn't state the origin or valid range.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Place a title block on the current drawing sheet.' That clearly separates it from siblings such as nx_create_note, nx_create_dimension and nx_create_roughness, which all add different drafting entities. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

'on the current drawing sheet' implies the prerequisite that a sheet must already exist and be active, but the description never states that condition or what to do otherwise. There is no when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as nx_create_drawing_sheet. Usage is inferable, not spelled out.

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