dimension_radial

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the side effect explicitly: 'Adds radial DIMENSION entity.' The 'positive leader length' phrasing also flags an input constraint the schema does not enforce. It leaves out failure modes and whether a transaction is required for the addition to persist.

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 with the operation stated first, then side effects, then disambiguation. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all six params are documented in the schema. What remains unaddressed is whether the arc/circle must already exist and whether the mutation needs transaction_commit to persist — useful given the surrounding transaction tools.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'center/chord geometry' groups the four coordinate params conceptually, and 'positive leader length' supplies a sign constraint absent from the schema's bare 'number' type. Layer/active-layer behavior remains schema-only.

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 and resource (create a typed radial dimension) plus the exact input geometry (center/chord, leader length) and the style source (active drawing dimension style). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling dimension_diametric, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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 disambiguation line gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: use dimension_diametric for full circles, since this tool displays radius (R). It stops short of stating prerequisites (an existing arc/circle), and 'prefer' is a soft routing rule, but the core when-to-use guidance is present.

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