Sheet: Add Balloon

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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=false; the description carries the real disclosure burden and does so well, covering idempotency via the ACADMCP_MECH payload (renumbered: true), and enumerating three refusal conditions plus the guarantee that refusals occur 'before the first entity' (atomicity). It stops short of describing layer/permission requirements.

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 entity it creates, then rerun semantics, then refusals — a sensible order with almost no filler. The hard-wrapped lines are cosmetic noise, and the refusal paragraph is dense but 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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behavior an agent needs: idempotent renumbering, failure modes, and atomicity. Return values need not be explained given the output schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

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?

With 78% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying 'item' to bom_extract numbering and defining 'targets' as the handles a rerun renumbers by. The radius/numeral ratio rule is also clarified in-language, though leader and layer/layout stay schema-only.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('One ISO 6433 item reference: a numbered balloon, a leader, and a dot on the item'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like bom_extract, bom_table, or mech_dimension_part. An agent can identify the tool's output entities without opening the 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?

It explains the re-run case ('running the balloon pass again after the bill of materials is regrouped *renumbers* the existing balloon'), which is useful usage context, but never states when to call this versus siblings such as bom_table or bom_extract, nor any prerequisite (e.g. BOM must exist first). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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