add_feature_note

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 discloses that the gate reads the note back as coverage, that text defaults to a sensible callout, and that it returns a structured object {handle, name, feature, text}. It does not state permission requirements or whether the note can be removed, but it goes well beyond a minimal mutation description.

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 a single dense sentence plus two short sentences. It is somewhat front-loaded with the main action, but the middle sentence contains nested parentheticals and jargon ('per CAD model / profile table', 'BSpline wall's profile') that make it harder to scan. It is not wasteful, but it is not tightly structured.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does provide the return shape and the interaction with drawing_gate's gate check. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves most parameters unexplained and does not cover permissions or failure behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% (all seven parameters lack descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains that `feature` is the enumerated feature id from drawing_gate's enumerated_features and gives examples, and that `text` defaults to a sensible callout. It does not explain `page`, `x`, `y`, `kind`, or `name`, leaving five of seven parameters undocumented, which prevents a 5.

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 action ('Attach an explicit manufacturing NOTE') and ties it to a concrete purpose (satisfying a curved/periodic feature that drawing_gate enumerates). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like add_annotation, add_dimension, and add_gdt_callout by focusing on gate-driven feature coverage. It's slightly dense and assumes familiarity with the drawing_gate workflow, but the verb+resource+goal are present.

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 implies when to use it (when a curved/periodic feature needs 'per CAD model / profile table' coverage or a documented cone angle) and references drawing_gate's enumerated_features. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it versus add_annotation or annotate_face, nor does it name those alternatives. The condition is implied but not stated as an exclusion.

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