add_plan_view

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: line-weight differentiation by layer, automatic placement in free area, manual position offset, replacement of previous plan views, and the need to check warning and suggested_scale in the output. This is comprehensive for a drawing-placement tool and even flags failure modes.

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?

The description is dense but not bloated; each sentence adds critical operational detail. The semicolon-heavy second sentence packs placement, position, and scale rationale efficiently. Slightly front-loaded but could be structured with clearer separation of default behavior versus manual overrides.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers main behaviors and parameters, but lacks any mention of the 'page' parameter, which is required for full invocation context. It also assumes an existing sheet without stating prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call create_drawing_page first.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains three of four parameters: layers (drawing subset), scale (sheet scale or override), and position (coordinates from bottom-left corner). The 'page' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap in the parameter semantics, but the other three are meaningfully clarified.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Put the drawing on the sheet at the sheet's scale' with line weights by layer. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like position_view or set_scale by describing the complete add-plan-view operation, including auto-placement and replacement behavior.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you want to place a drawing on a sheet as a plan view. It gives context about auto-placement and manual position, and notes that it replaces any previous plan view. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the selection among siblings like position_view or create_drawing_page to inference.

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