Set Title Block

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that calling it 'overrides or adds' fields and 'opts the page into rendering the block,' which are useful side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly say what is overwritten or whether the action is reversible, so it only partially supplements the annotation.

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, each earning its place: purpose, context, use-case rationale, and return type. No filler or repetition. Slightly longer than the ideal, but still compact and well-structured.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, and return shape, which is helpful given no output schema. However, parameter semantics are not fully explained, no prerequisites are mentioned, and the description doesn't say what happens if called multiple times. There are clear gaps an agent would need to infer.

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. It mentions material, scale, units, and part name as fields that override auto-derived values, but it does not explain the page parameter or the semantics of rev, date, project, and drawn_by. For an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Populate the drawing's title block.' It then explains that the tool composes a custom block on SVG/PDF export, distinguishing it from generic annotation or dimension tools. The purpose is unambiguous and resource-specific.

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 provides context on when to use it: FreeCAD's default template is bare, so this tool overrides or adds fields that are auto-derived. It even gives a concrete use case ('a machinist needs material + scale + units'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies its dedicated role.

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