add_techdraw_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's main contribution is the "(undoable)" note, which genuinely adds value about mutability and reversal. It says nothing about failure modes, whether an existing page is required, or whether repeated calls stack duplicate views.

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 no filler; the undoable caveat is parenthetical and does not bury the core action. Nothing here is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage the description is too thin. It gives no guidance on required page/object preconditions, on how scale interacts with the page, or on when to set projection_group true versus passing a plain view.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. The mention of "orthographic view" loosely maps to direction and "multi-view Projection Group" hints at the projection_group and views parameters, but scale, doc_name, page_name and object_name get no explanation of format or expected values.

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 uses a concrete verb ("Add") with a specific resource (an orthographic view or multi-view Projection Group on a TechDraw page), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_techdraw_section or add_techdraw_dimension, so an agent must infer that those create different annotation types.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus add_techdraw_section, add_techdraw_dimension, or create_techdraw_page, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a page and a source object must already exist). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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