autocad_check_fits_boundary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a genuinely useful guarantee beyond them: 'Never distorts or scales the points — it only reports whether they fit, so dimensions are never silently changed.' That directly addresses the biggest fear with a fit-checking tool wrapped around geometry APIs.

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-loaded with the core behavior and the no-mutation guarantee before the Args/Returns sections. Slightly boilerplate-heavy docstring structure, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not document the return payload, yet it still names the JSON keys (fits, boundary_usable_extents, requested_extents) for convenience. Combined with annotations and the no-mutation guarantee, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the fits=false follow-up behavior is unspecified.

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 Args block adds meaning beyond the schema: points are 'corners (or any representative points)', layer is the boundary layer, and crucially margin is 'annotation margin to subtract, matching the value used when the boundary was created' — a usage constraint the field description alone does not convey. Minor gap: no note on the point-count limit or coordinate units.

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 ('Check whether proposed geometry fits inside the sheet boundary's usable area') and immediately distinguishes this verification tool from the many create/move/scale siblings. An agent can tell from one line that this is a read-only fit test, not a geometry mutation.

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?

Usage is implied by the check workflow (validate proposed geometry against an existing boundary), and the margin note hints at the prerequisite of matching the boundary creation value. However, it never explicitly says when to call this instead of, say, autocad_create_boundary or the array/scale tools, nor does it state what to do when fits=false.

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