Fit Drawing to Page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds behavioral context by explaining that views are recentred and the drawing is slid inside the border. It also discloses the failure condition (fits=False means the content is too large even when centred), which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences front-load the core purpose and each sentence contributes operational detail: what is fitted, why it's needed, the margin parameter, and the return contract. The description is dense but not bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the return keys {scale, fits, envelope, border} and explaining the fits=False failure mode. The only material gap is the undocumented page parameter, but for a low-complexity two-parameter tool this is mostly complete.

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 carry the burden for parameters. It explains margin as 'the border inset', but the required page parameter is only named 'Page' in the schema and is not described in the prose. This leaves one required parameter underspecified.

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 and resource: 'Auto-fit a drawing to its sheet' and describes what it does—recentre views so the part and dimensions sit inside the printable border. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling drawing tools like add_projection_group or add_dimension, which have different purposes in the same workflow.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: 'call this after placing dimensions to slide everything inside'. It also explains the precondition that the projection group's Automatic scale sizes the part while dimensions extend beyond it, giving context for why this tool is needed. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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