autocad_add_door

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the wall is NOT trimmed (a side effect an agent would otherwise assume), and the layer is auto-created. It does not discuss repeat-call behavior or idempotency, but the key surprising behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the most important, non-obvious fact (the wall is not trimmed) in the first line, then tapers into Args and Returns. Every item earns its place, though the Args block partially duplicates the schema's own field descriptions.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite workflow, side effects, all five parameters with units and conventions, and the return payload shape. For a geometry-creating tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 reported schema coverage is 0%, but the nested $defs do carry field descriptions; the description largely restates them (hinge, width, closed_angle, swing_angle, layer) while adding unit examples ('900 (mm)'), the CCW sign convention, and the 'door layer' default. It grounds 'hinge-side jamb' in the gap workflow, adding context the schema alone does not.

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 and resource ('Draw a door') and immediately enumerates the exact geometry produced ('leaf line + quarter-circle swing arc anchored at the hinge'). This distinguishes it cleanly from autocad_draw_wall and autocad_draw_room, which an agent could otherwise confuse with door geometry.

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?

Explicitly describes the prerequisite workflow: the wall is not trimmed, so the agent must leave a gap (naming autocad_draw_wall as the tool to do it with) sized to the door width, then anchor at the gap jamb. This is a clear when-to-use and how-it-composes-with-a-sibling instruction.

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