TitleBlock: ISO A3

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

Description discloses useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: title text is used verbatim, the layout is where a title block belongs, and the current space is restored after use so the user isn't left on the sheet. The annotations only state destructiveHint:false, so this extra context meaningfully clarifies side effects. It stops short of describing what happens if the layout doesn't exist or whether an existing titleblock is replaced.

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 compact: three sentences, front-loaded with the core identity, followed by the most important usage nuance and a behavior guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 description covers the essential invocation scenario and the critical layout nuance, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, given 15 parameters and very low schema coverage, the description is not fully complete; it doesn't clarify coordinate origin behavior, the meaning of sheet/scale defaults, or how the titleblock interacts with an existing drawing.

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 only 20%, and the description adds meaning mainly for the layout and title parameters. It restates that title is verbatim and elaborates on layout placement, but leaves many parameters (origin_x, origin_y, material, checked_by, revision, etc.) undefined in both schema and description. Since the schema does not carry the weight, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'ISO 7200 / A3 (420x297 mm) title block', giving a specific verb-like resource with exact standard and dimensions. The tool name 'titleblock_apply_iso_a3' also clearly indicates the action and target, distinguishing it from all sibling tools, none of which overlap with this function.

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 description clearly states when to use the layout parameter: 'Pass layout to put the sheet on a paper-space layout, which is where a title block belongs'. It also explains that a border should frame the printed sheet, not the model, and that the current space is restored afterward. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there are no direct competing titleblock tools among siblings.

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