add_section_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses automatic feature judgment from the real solid, the cut orientation ('runs lengthwise through such a feature'), placement ('in clear space beside the existing views'), default auto behavior, and the return shape ({added, recommended, reasons, feature_ids, view?, normal?, origin?}).

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 front-loaded with the core condition, then the auto semantics, then process and return shape in compact parentheticals. Every sentence contributes useful information about when the tool acts and what it returns, with no filler.

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 a complex CAD automation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers intent, automatic decision logic, override, feature enumeration modes, and return fields. It leaves minor gaps on name, symbol, and page semantics, but those are low-risk naming/placement parameters.

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 should compensate. It explains auto (default True, controls forced vs. conditional addition) and process ('auto' | 'prismatic' | 'turned' — how features are enumerated), but says nothing about page, name (default 'Section'), or symbol (default 'A'). It adds meaningful semantics for two of five parameters.

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 verb and resource ('Add a cross-section view') and scopes it precisely: 'when the part has internal features the outline / hidden-line views convey ambiguously — a counterbore, a blind hole/bore, or a pocket.' An agent can tell this is an automated section-view creation tool distinct from a plain manual section_view call.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions and when-not behavior ('auto ... add the section ONLY if the part actually has hidden internal geometry; otherwise return {added: False, recommended: False}') plus an override ('Set auto=False to force a section'). It also references drawing_gate for advance decision support. It does not explicitly name the sibling section_view as an alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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