document_configure_units

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

The 'Side-effects' line names the actual system variables mutated (INSUNITS, MEASUREMENT, LUNITS, LUPREC), which is real behavioral value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not state reversibility, whether omissions reset values, or any permission requirements, so there is still a gap for a mutation tool.

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 action and covered fields, followed by compact side-effect and disambiguation lines. The phrase 'using a bounded typed schema' is mild filler that does not earn its place, preventing a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the side-effects line covers the main behavioral risk. What is missing is what happens when all four optional parameters are omitted (no-op or reset to defaults), a meaningful detail for a tool where every parameter defaults to null.

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 each parameter's meaning and accepted values are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only restates the parameter categories and adds the meta remark 'bounded typed schema', giving no extra syntax, interaction, or default behavior information.

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 ('Configure') plus the exact resource set (drawing insertion units, measurement system, linear format, precision). No sibling tool touches unit configuration, so an agent can immediately tell this is the setup tool for units without consulting any 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?

Explicitly says to 'Use during drawing setup to guarantee unit consistency (e.g. millimeters)', which gives a clear usage context and intent. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming any alternative (e.g. object_set_properties for per-object overrides), so it falls just below the top mark.

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