TitleBlock: ISO A3

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that title text is used verbatim (no transformation). However, it does not disclose whether the tool creates, overwrites, or modifies an existing title block, nor does it explain side effects on the drawing.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly expanded to include parameter details without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 14 parameters and low schema coverage (14%). The description does not explain the return value or output schema, nor how the title block is applied (layout vs. model space). Significant gaps remain for an agent to use the tool 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?

With 14 parameters and only 2 described in the schema (title, drawing_no), the description only reinforces 'verbatim' for the title. Most parameters (date, scale, sheet, etc.) lack any semantic explanation, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 clearly states it applies an ISO 7200 / A3 title block with specific dimensions, and notes that title text is used verbatim. This differentiates it from potential alternate title block sizes, though sibling tools do not include other title block tools explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other title block sizes or template tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active layout) or situations to avoid.

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