fit_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the projection group's Automatic scale already sizes the part, that dimensions extend a fixed margin that can run off an edge, and what the tool changes (slides everything inside). It does not state whether the document is mutated or requires a saved/active page, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 primary action and its reason, followed by the causal explanation and the return contract. Dense but each sentence adds information; only the margin explanation mildly overlaps the schema default.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape {scale, fits, envelope, border} and the meaning of fits=False, plus the sequencing and failure remedy. The remaining gap is the `page` argument's identity and whether the drawing is modified in place.

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% and only two params exist. The description explains `margin` as the border inset in mm (matching the default of 8), but `page` is left undefined — an agent cannot tell whether it is a name, index, or handle. Partial compensation, so a middling 3.

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 specific verb (auto-fit) and resource (drawing to its sheet) and explains the exact mechanism — recentring views so the part plus placed dimensions sit inside the printable border, clear of the title block. This is far more precise than any sibling drawing tool and lets an agent distinguish it from add_projection_group or add_dimension.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('call this after placing dimensions') and a terminal condition ('fits=False means the part + dims are too large even when centred — use a larger sheet'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-call rule, but the temporal placement guidance is concrete.

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