add_gtol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about side effects, whether the active document must be a drawing, failure behavior when the dimension or datum isn't found, or reversibility (an undo sibling exists). 'Add' only implies a mutation.

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?

It is one efficient sentence, and the example is well chosen. It is arguably too terse given how complex the tool is, but nothing in it 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema itself is rich. Still, the description omits prerequisites, the drawing context and the relationship to datum tags. For a mutation tool without annotations, those gaps matter.

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 100% and explains the two placement modes (on a dimension, or at sheet coordinates with an optional leader) in detail. The description's example loosely maps to characteristic, diameter_zone, tolerance, material_condition and datums, which adds slight intuition. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific action and resource: adding a GD&T feature control frame. The concrete example "position Ø0.2 (M) to A|B|C" removes any doubt about what is created. It does not separate itself from the siblings add_annotation, add_note and add_datum_tag, and it does not say the tool works on drawings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use the tool or what it needs first, such as an open drawing. It also never mentions the related add_datum_tag sibling. The schema covers some of this, for example pointing to list_model_dimensions and calling the dimension attachment 'the usual place for a hole's position tolerance', but the description itself gives none.

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