Sheet: ISO 7200 Title Block

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and delivers: refusals happen 'all before the first entity' (so failures are atomic and leave no partial drawing), title text is used verbatim, and the projection symbol's visual output is described. It does not state layer placement, idempotency, or whether repeated calls stack duplicate blocks.

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-loads what the tool draws, then symbol semantics, then refusal behavior, then sibling routing. Dense but well-ordered with no filler, though the refusal enumeration is a long compound sentence that could be tightened.

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 21-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (return values need not be explained) and destructiveHint=false, the description covers geometry, validation/refusal semantics, symbol behavior, and family routing. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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 only 43%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it partially does: it pins the size set (five sizes), the projection values, and the layout-existence requirement. However, the many text fields (company, part_no, revision, scale, sheet, origin_x/y, frame/marks/zones) are left to the schema or to guesswork, so roughly half the parameters still carry no added meaning.

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 action (apply/draw an ISO 7200 title block) with concrete geometry (180 mm, lower-right corner, A4-A0) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the near-duplicate sibling titleblock_apply_iso_a3. An agent knows exactly what this produces without opening the 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?

The sibling note ('this tool with size=A3 and no symbol, kept so no caller breaks') gives clear routing context for the most confusable alternative, and the refusal list tells the caller what it will reject. It does not compare against other sheet-composition tools like sheet_frame or drawing_apply_standard, so no explicit when-not guidance for the broader family.

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