cad_view

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

The annotations already signal destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds context about the scope (definitions only), uniqueness constraints (unique name per document), and an optional explicit view_id. However, it does not detail side effects like irreversibility of deletion or field-clearing behavior, though such details appear in the schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary CRUD purpose, followed by domain details and an explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The bilingual repeat is acceptable and doesn't add bloat.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and constraints, including its distinction from rendering. It doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each field. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the action discriminator and the uniqueness of name, which are also covered in the schema. Baseline is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function with specific verbs ('Create, read, list, update or delete') and identifies the resource ('3D view definition'). It also distinguishes from sibling cad_render by explicitly stating what not to use it for.

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 explicitly includes a 'When not to use' section, directing users to cad_render for rendering and clarifying that cad_view only manages definitions. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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