Add Dimension

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

The description discloses the return shape, that the printed value is the true measured length (not foreshortened), and how tolerances are rendered. Annotations already flag the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral specifics without contradicting them, though it does not detail document-level side effects like save/undo.

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 long but well-structured: a one-line purpose, bulleted modes, a parameter key, and a return-value note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section earns its place, though a few details (e.g., 'issue #108', the machinist aside) are minor extras.

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 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema param descriptions, this is highly complete: it covers modes, tolerance semantics, view resolution, and the return value. It omits an explicit treatment of the required page parameter and error/edge cases, but those are minor given the overall clarity.

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 carries the full weight, and it does: it explains every mode, the allowed kind values, tolerance JSON formats, point arrays, views naming, and half_angle. The only required parameter, page, is implied by the opening sentence; all other parameters receive explicit semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Add dimension(s) to a drawing page') and then enumerates five distinct modes, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from sibling annotation/note/GDT tools by its focus on measurements and dimension objects.

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 'Modes (pick one)' section acts as an internal decision tree, telling the agent exactly when to use auto vs. view+edge vs. view+face vs. from/to points. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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