add_techdraw_section

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: '(undoable)', telling the agent the change is reversible. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what the returned view contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the artifact type and the key dependency stated first; no filler or repetition. It is terse to the point of omitting information the agent needs, but nothing present is wasted.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough; the section plane parameters (normal, origin, direction) and scale are entirely opaque. The existing output schema offsets the need to explain return values, but the input side remains under-described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: 8 of the 10 parameters (x, y, name, scale, doc_name, section_normal, section_origin, section_direction) get no explanation. Its only contribution is tying 'BaseView' to base_view_name, which is minimal. Because coverage is low, this falls to the mandated baseline rather than earning credit.

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 and resource ('Add a TechDraw cross-section view'), and names the underlying FreeCAD type (DrawViewSection) plus its dependency on a BaseView. That is enough to distinguish it from add_techdraw_view and add_techdraw_dimension by artifact type, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 only implied guidance is the 'cutting through a BaseView' clause, which suggests a base view must already exist. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (page must exist, base view must be on that page), and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it.

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