dimension_ordinate

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries real weight here and delivers: 'Adds ordinate DIMENSION entity' makes the mutation explicit and consistent with the annotation, and 'strict axis validation' warns that invalid axis values will fail rather than silently default. It omits whether changes are undoable, which layer/space the entity lands in, and any transaction requirement.

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?

Three short labeled lines: the action first, then side-effects, then disambiguation. Zero filler and the mutation warning is not buried.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation present, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it. It stops short on operational context: whether an active document/transaction is required and what happens to the entity's default dimension style.

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 all six parameters are already documented (axis default 'x', layer default null, the four coordinate pairs), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only conceptual mapping of definition point and leader endpoint plus the promise of strict axis validation, but gives no new syntax, valid ranges, or layer behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Create an X- or Y-ordinate dimension' plus the inputs it is built from (WCS definition point and leader endpoint). It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from linear/aligned/angular dimension siblings by resource type, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 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?

'Measures absolute distance from drawing origin or datum' implies the use case (ordinate/datum dimensioning) and 'strict axis validation' implies a constraint on the axis argument, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus dimension_linear/dimension_aligned, nor stated prerequisites such as requiring an active document or open transaction. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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