GD&T: Feature Control Frame (ISO 1101)

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond that by stating rendering consistency across COM and ezdxf, and that datums are recorded for critique integration. This provides useful behavioral context not covered by 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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences in the first paragraph for purpose, and one sentence with two key behavioral points in the second. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has 9 parameters, 4 required, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (rendering, critique integration). However, it omits error conditions or behavior for invalid inputs, which are partially covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning (e.g., 'Ordered datum references' for datums), but does not significantly enrich understanding beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the verb 'Draw' and the specific resource 'ISO 1101 feature control frame', and mentions it uses LINE + TEXT primitives. This differentiates it from sibling entity creation tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context about rendering and integration with the critique tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., datum_feature or other annotation tools). Usage guidance is implied but not directly addressed.

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