add_dimension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this mutates the current drawing, whether the layer must already exist, what coordinate system or units are expected, or whether layer creation occurs. The output schema helps with return values, but mutation behavior remains undisclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Each line documents a parameter without redundant or promotional text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should say more about drawing mutation, coordinate expectations, and layer handling. Parameter semantics are complete enough for invocation, but behavioral context is thin.

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%, but the description compensates well by documenting all five parameters: point1 and point2 as extension line origins, dim_line_point as dimension line location, dim_type as 'aligned' or 'linear', and layer as optional. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a linear or aligned dimension between point1 and point2.' It clearly distinguishes this from drawing primitives like draw_line or draw_rectangle because the resource is a dimension object with extension line origins.

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 explains how to call the tool but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites for adding dimensions, or what happens if the target layer does not exist. The intended CAD drafting context is only implied.

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