Add GD&T Callout

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint flags, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the frame renders as a real compartmented symbol, that diametral controls render with a Ø, that inspection_plan/fai_report read the callout back as a characteristic, and that datums change the selected inspection instrument. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema provide.

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 lengthy but organized: purpose first, then a clarifying contrast, then a scannable parameter list, then the return shape. Every section adds useful information, though the CMM/surface-plate explanation is slightly beyond what is strictly needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description covers most invocation needs: parameter meanings, coordinate origin, return fields, and downstream inspection behavior. It is not fully complete because the required page parameter remains unexplained and optional view/name semantics are absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates substantially: it documents control values, zone units, datums format, feature source, mmc_bonus, modifier, and x/y coordinate conventions. However, the required page parameter is never defined, and view and name receive no semantic guidance, leaving a meaningful gap for a required argument.

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 concrete verb-resource pair, 'Place a GD&T feature control frame on a drawing page,' and explains what the result is: a real compartmented symbol readable by inspection tooling. It explicitly distinguishes itself from gdt_check by framing this as declaring tolerance on the drawing rather than only checking a measurement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool instead of gdt_check: declaring the tolerance on the drawing is what makes it inspectable by inspection_plan and fai_report. It also adds useful downstream context about datum-based controls being CMM work versus datum-free form controls being surface-plate work, though it does not enumerate exclusions against other annotation tools such as add_annotation or add_dimension.

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