Change Space

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

The description goes well beyond the annotation (destructiveHint=false) by disclosing exact behavioral traits: geometry is transformed by the viewport matrix to preserve on-screen size, certain entity types are refused per entity unless freeze_dimensions is set, twisted or non-plan viewports cause outright refusal, and out-of-bounds entities are moved and flagged rather than refused. These details are not available from annotations alone.

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 organized into three focused paragraphs: introduction, scaling rationale with a concrete example, and list of refusal/flagging behaviors. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity, full schema coverage, output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers the tool's purpose, scaling behavior, per-entity and viewport-level refusals, and edge-case handling, leaving no critical gap for an agent to predict behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that dimensions are refused unless freeze_dimensions is set, which clarifies the purpose of that parameter in context, and by emphasizing viewport_handle's role in defining the model-to-paper mapping. This is more than what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'AutoCAD's CHSPACE: move entities across spaces, rescaled by the viewport', clearly stating a specific verb, resource, and core behavior. It distinguishes itself from same-space moves like entity_move by emphasizing 'across spaces' and viewport-based rescaling.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to move entities between model and paper space with viewport scaling. It also provides explicit when-not conditions, listing entity types that are refused and viewport configurations that cause outright refusal. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for same-space movement, though the context strongly implies it.

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