add_dimension

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not disclose that this writes a new entity into the drawing, that layer may be auto-created, or what the created dimension is returned as.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler, though the parenthetical is slightly redundant with the enum.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and 88% schema description coverage, the structured fields carry most of the load. Still, for an 8-parameter mutation tool the description says nothing about the required location point or how kind affects rotation, leaving small gaps.

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 88%, so the schema already documents params like location, color, text_height and rotation in detail. The description's enumeration of the kind values merely restates the existing enum, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('dimension') and the resource (the distance between p1 and p2), so an agent knows this creates a dimension annotation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like draw_line or add_text, though 'dimension' used as a verb is mildly idiosyncratic.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many annotation/geometry siblings. The parenthetical kind list is a parameter detail, not usage guidance.

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