Batch Plot

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden — and does. It discloses that sheet size is verified from the written PDF's /MediaBox rather than assumed, lists the exact pre-write refusal conditions (non-pdf format, empty layouts, nonexistent layout, bad file_pattern, disallowed output path), and defines the error contract (`mediabox_mm: null` plus `error`). That is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 one-line purpose, then output shape, then refusal rules — a logical order with no filler sentences. Some inline bold and parenthetical detail (points → mm, 0.5 mm tolerance) thicken it, but each clause adds operational meaning.

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 4-parameter batch export tool with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything the missing pieces would otherwise hide: what gets written, how success is verified, what is rejected before writing, and how per-sheet failures surface. An agent can call this correctly without further documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraint semantics: `file_pattern` must contain `{layout}` when plotting multiple sheets and must not contain a path separator, and `layouts` naming governs whether Model space is included. Those are behavioral constraints on parameters that the schema alone does not express.

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 specific operation — AutoCAD PUBLISH producing a PDF set — and ties it to the sibling mechanism `drawing_export_pdf(layout=…)`, making clear this is the batch wrapper around a single-sheet export. The name `batch_plot` is immediately grounded by 'PDF set' and 'one row per sheet', so an agent can separate it from drawing_export_pdf without opening either 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?

Usage context is clear: publish many layouts at once, omit `layouts` for every paper-space layout, include 'Model' only when named. The link to `drawing_export_pdf(layout=…)` implies the alternative for single-sheet work, but the description never explicitly says 'use drawing_export_pdf for one layout' nor states when neither should be used.

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