add_gdt_callout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits beyond a bare description — the frame renders as a compartmented symbol and is consumed by downstream inspection tools — but it never states that this mutates the drawing document, whether a page must already exist (make_drawing_page), or any reversibility/permission constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a paragraph justifying the tool's value, then a clean per-parameter breakdown. Slightly verbose in the second paragraph, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does most of the heavy lifting — covering most parameters and even stating the inline return shape ({handle, name, control, zone, datums, text}). It falls short only on the required `page`/`view`/`name` semantics and the preconditions for the target drawing page.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents 8 of 11 parameters with genuine added meaning: the control vocabulary with 13 enumerated ASME Y14.5 values, zone units and Ø rendering rules, datum ordering with inspection implications, feature linkage to drawing_gate's enumerated_features, mmc_bonus, modifier examples, and x/y page-origin conventions. It leaves the required `page` plus `name` and `view` undocumented, which is a notable gap for a required parameter.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Place a GD&T feature control frame on a drawing page.' It also names the two downstream consumers (inspection_plan / fai_report) and the related-but-different sibling gdt_check, so an agent can distinguish it from add_annotation, add_dimension, and gdt_check at a glance.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use this versus gdt_check: declaring tolerance ON THE DRAWING 'rather than only checking a measurement with gdt_check' is what makes the characteristic inspectable and readable by inspection_plan/fai_report. It also explains that datum content selects the inspection method (CMM vs surface-plate), which is actionable routing guidance.

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