autocad_array_linear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the non-obvious semantics that count includes the original and that (count-1) copies are produced, plus the returned handle ordering. It still omits whether the original entity is modified in place or whether the operation is undoable.

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 core purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the Args block is scannable. The Returns block partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only real redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with full annotations and a declared output schema, the description covers purpose, count semantics, parameter meanings and the response shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 top-level `params` wrapper has no description in the schema (coverage reported as 0%), so the description has to carry meaning — and it does, enumerating handle, count with its 2-500 range, and dx/dy/dz spacing. Most of this restates the nested $defs descriptions, so it compensates rather than adds much new.

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 ('Create a linear array of copies of an entity') and immediately disambiguates scope with '(the original counts as the first instance)', which cleanly separates it from autocad_array_polar and from repeated autocad_copy_entity calls.

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 linear scope implies when the tool is appropriate, but the description never names an alternative or a condition for choosing it — notably it does not contrast with the sibling autocad_array_polar or explain when an agent should array versus copy repeatedly. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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