create_standard_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the operation type and unit semantics (mm). It does not explain what 'associative' means, whether existing views are affected, whether this is destructive, or what side effects occur on the drawing.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the unit note is a meaningful addition. It is concise, though arguably under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too minimal. Missing preconditions, return values, projection semantics, and behavioral expectations leave an agent unable to invoke the tool confidently.

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 compensate, but it only adds that coordinates/gaps are in mm. Parameter names and the projections enum provide some hints, but drawing_handle, model_path, scale, and orientation are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('associative engineering views from a native model in a drawing'). It clearly differentiates from drawing primitives like draw_line or create_sketch, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether the drawing must be open or the model loaded), or exclusions. The phrase 'from a native model in a drawing' gives context but no actionable selection criteria.

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