dimension_angular

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that a DIMENSION entity is added (mutation side-effect) and that invalid collinear rays are rejected before mutation — valuable pre-execution context. It stops short of noting layer fallback behavior or return shape, but the mutation semantics and validation contract are well covered.

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 core action, followed by a compact side-effect line and a disambiguation line. Zero filler; every clause conveys actionable information.

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?

Covers the action, the geometric inputs, validation behavior, and the mutation side-effect, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Complete enough for correct invocation; minor omissions like layer default handling are already in the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the geometric roles of vertex/rays/text point and their WCS nature, but adds little beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Create a typed angular dimension') and enumerates the geometry inputs (vertex, two WCS ray points, text point). The word 'angular' plus the geometric phrasing clearly separates it from dimension_linear, dimension_aligned, dimension_radial, dimension_diametric, and dimension_ordinate siblings.

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?

'Use to dimension angles in degrees' gives a clear usage context, and 'rays must not be collinear' is an explicit precondition that guides invocation. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the angular-vs-other-dimension distinction is unambiguous from the name and description.

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