Create radial dimensions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'one undo step' (atomic), the radius-verification/associative linkage, the drawing/window placement constraints, and the return payload shape. Auth requirements and failure modes are not discussed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the atomic-undo fact, then constraints, then return shape. Minimal waste; the quoted field names are terse and functional rather than filler.

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 high-complexity geometry tool with a deeply nested schema, the description covers placement constraints, associativity/verification, and even the return format in the absence of an output schema. Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The reported coverage is 0% at the top level, but the nested item schema is actually exhaustively documented (at, lineEnd, prefix, text, pens, fonts, etc.). The description re-explains 'at' (where it touches the arc) and 'lineEnd' (where the radial line ends) in slightly more intuitive terms, but adds little the schema does not already provide.

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?

Clear, specific verb+resource: it 'dimensions the radius' of arcs, circles, curved walls or beams. This distinguishes it well from the many sibling dimension tools (create_dimensions, create_angle_dimensions, create_level_dimensions, dimension_walls), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Provides real prerequisites: walls/beams must be on the Floor Plan, arcs/circles must be in the active window's drawing, and the radius is verified against the element. However, it never states when to prefer this over create_dimensions/dimension_walls or other dimensioning tools, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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