import_dimensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default kinds and that it operates on every view or one, plus 'each once' for model dimensions and counted callouts, but it omits mutation side effects, duplicate handling, prerequisites, and what happens to existing annotations.

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 front-loads the high-level purpose before defining kinds and the default behavior. The fragmented phrasing is a minor readability issue, but there is no wasted text.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description gives enough to invoke the tool with view and kinds. It remains incomplete for a mutating import operation because it does not cover active-document requirements, return behavior, or duplicate/error handling.

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. It does explain the meaningful values for kinds and the all-views-vs-one-view scope, but the view parameter is only implied and details like exact default composition ('the first three') remain slightly ambiguous.

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 import operation and enumerates four kinds of content it can bring in: model dimensions, callouts, hole locations, and center marks. It does not explicitly name the target drawing/view context or distinguish itself from siblings like add_dimension or list_dimensions, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 phrase 'Bring in what the model already knows' implies usage when model-derived dimensions/annotations should be imported, and 'Default the first three, into every view (or one)' gives default scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of add_dimension, add_note, or manual annotation tools.

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