Sheet: ISO 5457 Frame

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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the load and delivers: refusals occur before the first entity is drawn, invalid sizes are refused by name with the five covered sizes listed, and it openly discloses the standard deviation (equal zone divisions rather than ISO's shorter corner fields). This is unusually informative.

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 what gets drawn before moving to layer targets and refusals. The refusal paragraph is dense but every clause carries real information; slightly verbose rather than padded.

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?

For a 7-parameter drawing tool with an output schema, the description covers geometry, margin dimensions, layer placement, failure modes, and known deviations from the standard. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including valid sizes and orientation values. The description adds refusal semantics for size/orientation/layout but no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it draws the ISO 5457 drawing frame with a 20 mm filing margin, 10 mm elsewhere, the grid reference system and centring/trimming marks. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like titleblock_apply and layout_create.

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?

It states where output lands (TITLEBLOCK and TEXT layers) and points at layout_create for the layout parameter, plus enumerates refusal conditions. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over a template or titleblock sibling, but the context is clear.

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