draw_linear_dimension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', implying a mutating operation, but does not reveal side effects, prerequisites, how the dimension associates with geometry, or failure behavior. 'Native measured' adds some context, but not enough for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with nine parameters.

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?

Given nine parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain orientation behavior, the meaning of view_number, the role of drawing_handle, or expected return values. The description is adequate for a high-level summary but not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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. It hints that x1/y1/x2/y2 are points and text_x/text_y is the text location, but it does not explain critical parameters like drawing_handle, view_number, or orientation. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('native measured 2D linear dimension between points'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. The word 'measured' helps distinguish it from plain geometric drawing tools like draw_line or draw_circle, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_line or draw_text. There is no mention of required context like an active drawing, view, or sketch, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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