Apply Page Setup

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the load and does so richly: idempotency (`changed` lists only moved values, re-apply reports `{}`), unknown-ctb behavior (written, reported plot_style_known:false), viewports never touched, and the headless-vs-live margins_mm difference. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by semantics, refusals, and the verification note. Every sentence carries information, though the technical density edges toward heavy for a first read.

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?

An output schema exists so return format needn't be restated, yet the description still explains the meaningful `changed` and plot_style_known fields. Combined with the refusal contract and engine caveats, an agent has everything required to call this 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% (baseline 3), and the description adds real value: the paper spelling convention (`ISO_A3_(420.00_x_297.00_MM)`), that margins_mm is refused on the live engine, and the plot_style unknown-ctb semantics. It stops just short of 5 because most enum-like value sets already live in 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('AutoCAD's PAGESETUP as one call') and scope ('on both engines'), naming the engines. It clearly distinguishes itself from page_setup_list and batch_plot, which it references for verification.

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?

Gives concrete when-not guidance through a detailed refusal list (unknown paper, orientation, scale, plot_area, empty device/plot_style, no printable area, 'Model', unknown layout) and engine-specific refusals. Lacks an explicit pointer to page_setup_list for discovering existing setups, so slightly short of 5.

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