Styles: Create Multileader Style

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

With only readOnlyHint=false provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains headless versus live storage, the ACAD_MLEADERSTYLE dictionary interaction, property writing, and the complete set of refusal conditions. It also notes that bundled text styles are created and that live font-file failures leave nothing written, which is unusually rich mutation transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves to engine behavior and validation. It is dense but largely free of filler; implementation details like AddObject(name, "AcDbMLeaderStyle") are more technical than an agent strictly needs, but they support the behavioral explanation.

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 a 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: write mode, persistence path, side effects on text styles, and detailed rejection rules. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 meaningful semantic constraints beyond the schema: the four allowed override keys, positive-value requirements for arrow_size, text_height, and landing_gap, name-existence refusal, and valid text_style sources including bundled presets. It does not document each parameter exhaustively, but it substantially augments the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a multileader style', and clarifies the order of preset values versus overrides. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as mleaderstyle_list or leader_create_mleader, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 is implied by the create-style wording and the preset-then-overrides workflow, but the description never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like mleaderstyle_list or when creating an mleader entity. The refusal conditions add operational context but are not usage guidance.

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