send_command

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it: it doesn't say whether the call blocks until the command completes, what happens on an invalid command, whether it can modify or destroy drawing data, or whether undo state is affected. Only the phrase 'raw command string' hints that validation is bypassed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and target, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the docstring-style Args section is slightly redundant for a single self-named parameter.

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?

The single required parameter is covered and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for an unannotated tool that executes arbitrary drawing commands, the absence of any failure-mode, safety, or blocking behavior information leaves a meaningful gap.

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% — the schema only types 'command' as a string — so the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving literal examples ('_.ZOOM _E', '_.REGEN') that convey the underscore-prefix and space-separated token convention. It does not explain sequence termination, how to pass multi-step input, or handling of prompts, leaving the format only half-specified.

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 ('Send') and resource ('raw command string') plus the exact target ('active AutoCAD 2027 command line'), which clearly separates it from the structured draw_* siblings. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this raw-command escape hatch over eval_autolisp, run_accoreconsole_script, or the dedicated draw_* tools. An agent must infer the 'use raw when no structured wrapper exists' rule from the word 'raw' alone.

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