mark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot: it specifies the return content (lengths, angles, percentages), that the area around marks is shown zoomed, and detailed snap behavior (pull to silhouette edge up to 12px, or to sharp internal gradients such as seams/chamfers). It leaves one gap: it does not clarify whether marks persist to the file or are just an overlay, so side-effect behavior is ambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and output, then neatly structured per parameter. Dense but every line earns its place; the parameter blocks are easy to scan. Slightly long overall, but no filler sentences.

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 six params at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies both parameter syntax and expected return values, which is substantial. It is nearly complete; only persistence/side-effects of the marks and the meaning of the view-index suffix remain unspecified.

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 documents all six parameters: view with its four format variants ('path|N', 'path|x1,y1,x2,y2'), points/lines array shapes, labels defaulting to P1,P2,…, snap enum values with semantics, and method. The only weakness is that 'method' is delegated ('как в silhouette') rather than explained, and the 'N' in 'path|N' is not fully spelled out.

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 concrete verb+resource: draw points/lines on a view and return exact measurements (px length, % of object dimensions, angle, point position in %). This is far more specific than the vague name 'mark'. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the many measurement siblings (grid, contour, silhouette); it only references silhouette for the method parameter.

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 rather than stated: 'проверка себя вместо оценки на глаз' frames it as a verification tool and 'Если отметка легла не туда — поправь и вызови снова' gives an iterative workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against siblings like grid or contour.

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