call_cad_bundle_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that execution happens on a workspace copy and preserves the source and old revisions, which signals a non-destructive-to-source operation. However, it does not explain what 'allowed' means, permission requirements, failure behavior, or the lifecycle of the workspace copy.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though for a tool of this complexity the brevity contributes to under-specification; still, from a conciseness standpoint it is efficient.

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?

The tool is complex: it invokes arbitrary CAD tools with a nested arguments object, has no annotations, and has many siblings. The one-sentence description omits prerequisite workflow, parameter details, and behavioral edge cases, so it is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 explain all three required parameters. It indirectly maps 'workspace copy' to workspace_id and 'allowed CAD tool' to tool_name, but says nothing about the nested 'arguments' object, leaving its structure and constraints undocumented.

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 ('Call') and resource ('allowed CAD tool on a workspace copy') and adds a scoping detail ('preserving source and old revisions'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as list_cad_bundle_tools or prepare_cad_bundle_workspace, so it earns 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., preparing a workspace), and no mention of related tools like list_cad_bundle_tools to discover allowed tools. The description only implies usage through its verb.

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