add_dimension

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

With no annotations to carry safety or behavior information, the description discloses important behavioral details: units are centimetres, rotations are degrees, the y-axis increases downward, and the tool does not snap or infer offsets. This adds real behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention side effects on the project file or validation behavior.

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 and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by essential measurement conventions, a behavioral caveat, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the most crucial contextual aspects: units, coordinate orientation, non-snapping behavior, and a usage example. It does not explain all parameter semantics explicitly or mention potential errors, but the output schema exists and the description is sufficient for a well-named tool.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It explains the coordinate system, units, rotation measurement, and provides a concrete example mapping parameters to values. Some parameter meanings remain implicit, but the names and example largely make them understandable.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a dimension line to a .sh3d project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_wall, add_room, and add_furniture. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use: it is for adding dimension lines with explicit coordinates, and it explicitly notes that snapping and offset inference are not performed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose and constraints make the appropriate use clear.

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