manage_xrefs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses mutation of the reference table and block definitions, marks detach|name as destructive with unbinding of geometry/images, notes persistence of link paths on save, and states that external files are read from disk during attachment.

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 long but well-sectioned and front-loaded, with behavior, usage, and grammar clearly separated. The Returns section is redundant because an output schema exists, but this is a minor efficiency issue rather than a structural flaw.

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 description is very complete for a complex tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, and the output schema covers return values. However, it does not fully specify the dictionary or list input shapes beyond saying they contain action and parameters, leaving a small gap for non-shorthand invocations.

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%, and the single input parameter is an unconstrained anyOf string/array/object. The description compensates by giving a clear shorthand grammar for every supported action, including attach, raster, list, reload, and detach, along with required arguments such as path, coordinates, scale, rotation, and name.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: managing external CAD references (DWG XREFs) and raster cartography or orthophoto underlays. It later distinguishes this tool from manage_blocks and manage_files, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: overlaying external project files as linked references without duplicating geometry. It also names alternatives and their selection conditions: manage_blocks for embedded reusable CAD blocks and manage_files for independent drawing documents.

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