Add Feature Note

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

Annotations already signal this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description's main job is to add context beyond that. It does: it explains that text defaults to a sensible callout, that drawing_gate reads the note back as coverage, and that the tool returns a specific object shape. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's effect.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by useful examples and the return shape. The parenthetical issue reference adds some noise, but overall every sentence contributes meaningful selection or invocation guidance.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key external dependency (drawing_gate's enumerated_features), the return value, and the default text behavior. It is slightly incomplete around what 'page' refers to and where x/y place the note, but it is sufficient for an agent familiar with drawing-page tools 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the most important parameter, 'feature', with enumerated examples and its source, and it clarifies that 'text' defaults to a callout. However, required parameter 'page' is left unexplained, and x/y, kind, and name receive no semantic guidance beyond schema defaults.

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 resource, and ties it to a concrete purpose: satisfying curved/periodic feature coverage that drawing_gate enumerates. It distinguishes itself from generic annotation tools by explaining that it handles geometry a single number cannot capture.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for freeform/BSpline profiles, tooth patterns, and cone angles that need per-CAD-model or profile-table coverage. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say 'use X instead', but the contrast with 'geometry a single number can't capture' implies the boundary against simple dimension/annotation tools.

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