Load Linetype

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: it names the ActiveX `Linetypes.Load` mechanism, MEASUREMENT-based .lin selection, post-load verification, and the refusal/error conditions (invalid symbol name, disallowed path, missing linetype, unfindable file). It does not state required permissions or idempotency, but the behavioral picture is unusually rich.

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, followed by the rationale-for-existence and then mechanics. It is somewhat dense and prose-heavy, but no clause is pure repetition of the schema, so it stays close to earning its length.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described; the description instead covers the failure modes, file resolution, and the underlying mechanism. For a 2-parameter mutation tool this leaves nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 meaning: it explains that `file` is resolved from MEASUREMENT and that names outside valid symbol syntax and files outside allowed paths are refused. These constraints go beyond the schema text.

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 verb and resource ('Load a single linetype') and reinforces scope with 'safely'. The only close sibling is linetype_list, and the read-vs-mutate distinction is inferable from the verb, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this instead of `system_run_command('_-LINETYPE _LOAD ...')`, and gives the concrete reason (deadlock on the FILEDIA picker and -LINETYPE option menu, verified on AutoCAD 2026). This is an explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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