cad_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no color: it never warns that close may discard unsaved work, that overwrite can destroy an existing file, or that behavior differs per action. The absolute-path requirement is the one genuinely useful addition.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler and the action list front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves useful detail out.

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 destructive 8-parameter file-management tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot infer what each action returns or how the optional flags interact.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden, yet it only clarifies the path constraint. Nothing explains version, template, documentId, readOnly, overwrite, or discardChanges semantics, and the action enum values are documented only in the schema.

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 gives clear verbs (create, open, save, save-as, close, activate, list) and a specific resource (AutoCAD drawings), which lets an agent distinguish it from cad_draw and cad_edit. It does not explicitly name which sibling handles read-only viewing or instance listing, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to choose this tool over cad_view, cad_instances, or cad_command, nor when each action variant applies. The only guidance is a path format constraint, not a usage condition.

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