Create a parallel copy of a line, arc, circle, or polyline at a given distance. Set the sign of the distance to choose which side receives the copy.
Create a parallel copy (OFFSET) of a line, arc, circle or polyline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| distance | Yes | Offset distance; the sign picks the side |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only write. The description usefully adds that this creates a *parallel* copy rather than a plain duplicate and that it is restricted to lines, arcs, circles and polylines, which is real behavioral information. It does not say what happens for an invalid handle or an unsupported entity type.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, verb and resource first. Its brevity is appropriate in form; the missing content belongs to other dimensions rather than to structural padding.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the handle semantics and any routing guidance against the many sibling duplication/modification tools, which for a 2-required-param mutation tool leaves a noticeable 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 50%: distance is documented ('the sign picks the side') but handle has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it neither explains what a handle is nor where to obtain one (e.g. list_entities/get_entity), leaving the required-property gap unpatched.
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+resource: create a parallel copy of a named set of entities. The parenthetical (OFFSET) ties it to the familiar CAD operation and the enumerated geometry types (line, arc, circle, polyline) implicitly distinguish it from the generic copy_entities/scale_entities siblings, though no sibling is named.
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 guidance. The description never says how this differs from copy_entities or move_entities, nor that unsupported entity types (text, hatch, block references) will fail despite being listed siblings that also support duplication-like operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.