import_drawing_hatch_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the source constraint (manifest resolution) and the action (importing to hatch pattern table). It does not cover potential side effects, idempotency, or error cases, but for a simple import tool, basic transparency is provided.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds a critical security constraint. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and sourcing context. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites exist, but completeness is adequate for the complexity level.

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?

The single parameter asset_id has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description clarifies that it identifies the drawing asset containing .pat definitions, but does not provide format, example, or constraints. Some context is added, but more explicit parameter details would improve usability.

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 clearly states the tool imports AutoCAD-style .pat hatch definitions from an indexed drawing asset into the active Rhino document's hatch pattern table. The verb 'imports' and resource 'hatch pattern definitions' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like place_drawing_asset or get_drawing_asset.

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 mentions that the tool accepts only .pat files from the controlled DrawingAssetfiles manifest, indicating a security boundary. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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