Radius Dimension

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description aligns by stating 'Create'. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—only mentioning 'optionally toleranced'. It does not disclose what happens if geometry is invalid, whether the dimension is associative, or other side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence (12 words) that efficiently conveys the essential operation. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters, 4 required, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits critical context such as the geometric relationship between center and chord points, that the dimension is placed in the current drawing, and how the tool interacts with existing entities. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond hinting at tolerance capability. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('radius dimension for a circle or arc'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling dimension tools (linear, aligned, angular, diameter) by specifying the geometry type.

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 implies usage for creating radius dimensions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dimension_diameter or dimension_linear. No 'when-not-to-use' conditions or references to siblings are included.

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