cad_collab

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a dispatch tool keyed by `tool`, sync is the WebSocket entry point, RBAC defaults to session owner for unknown users, and branch operations use CRDT. These details help the agent anticipate side effects and authentication/reliability nuances.

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 well-structured with a summary line, a bullet list per subdomain, and a when-not-to-use section. It is slightly verbose due to repetition between the first line and the Chinese summary, but the organization makes the information easily scannable for a complex dispatcher tool.

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 the tool's complexity (8 subdomains) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers all subdomains, explains the dispatch mechanism, gives usage boundaries, and notes default identity behavior. No major selection or invocation criteria are missing.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the `tool` discriminator to concrete subdomains and summarizing the actions each subdomain supports, which helps the agent choose the correct `collab` variant. It does not delve into parameter syntax because the schema already handles that.

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 description clearly identifies cad_collab as a multi-user collaboration dispatcher with a specific resource scope (sessions, branches, annotations, presence, history, resolve, permissions, sync). It lists concrete sub-operations for each subdomain and explicitly distinguishes itself from single-user sibling tools, making its purpose highly specific.

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 provides an explicit 'When not to use' section that tells the agent to use cad_object/cad_layer/cad_file for single-user edits, and it explains the identity/RBAC default behavior. Within the dispatcher, each subdomain's action list acts as a clear guide for when to use which branch of the tool.

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