autocad_create_boundary

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

Annotations already cover safety (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the idempotent reuse semantics and the COM-backend zoom-to-extents side effect. The replace=true destructive behavior is also spelled out.

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 core purpose and idempotency rule before the Args/Returns blocks. The structure is easy to scan, though the Returns block partially duplicates the output schema.

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, idempotency behavior, the replace flag, parameter meanings, and backend side effects. Since an output schema exists, the explicit Returns text is redundant but not harmful, and no critical invocation detail 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 Args section maps each shape value to its matching fields (corner1/corner2, center/radius, points) and gives defaults for margin, layer, and replace. This compensates for the reported low schema description coverage by clarifying how parameters interrelate.

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 (or reuse) a sheet boundary') and names the target layer. It is easily distinguished from geometry siblings like create_polyline or create_circle because it operates on the SHEET_BOUNDARY concept rather than raw entities.

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 explains the reuse-vs-replace decision: 'if a boundary already exists on the target layer, it is reused... pass replace=true to delete and recreate it instead.' This tells the agent when the call is a no-op and how to force recreation, though it doesn't contrast against sibling creation tools.

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