dimension_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the schema: the coordinate convention (x values measured along the face at y=edge), the offset sign convention (>0 above, <0 below), and the second-line overall dimension. However, it omits whether the tool mutates the document by inserting a drawing object and what effect default values (offset=null, overall=true) have on output.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the axis/offset semantics follow compactly. The style is telegraphic but efficient. It could be slightly more readable, but every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is only partially complete. Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the description leaves unit/scale semantics, the behavior of offset=null, and how to choose this over the sibling dimension tools unaddressed. An agent could call it correctly for the common horizontal case but would be guessing on non-default options.

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 for 7 parameters. It adds real meaning for axis, edge, offset, and coordinates (axis-dependent x/y interpretation and offset sign), but says nothing about unit (m/cm/mm), scale (default 50), or overall (default true). Roughly half the parameters remain semantically unexplained, which is insufficient at 0% schema coverage.

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?

The first sentence, 'A chain of consecutive dimensions plus the overall dimension on a second line,' states a specific construct with a clear resource (a dimension chain with an overall dimension) and an implied verb (create/draw). This distinguishes it from the many single-dimension siblings (dimension_linear, dimension_horizontal, etc.) by the 'chain' concept, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the ~7 sibling dimension tools (dimension_vertical, dimension_linear, dimension_aligned, dimension_angle, dimension_exterior, dimension_room, dimension_horizontal). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing statements — the axis explanation is geometry, not usage context.

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