autocad_create_hatch

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 adds useful behavior beyond that: the boundary is implicitly closed, the layer is auto-created for both entities, and the exact return payload is given. It does not, however, state that each call creates new entities or that a document must be open.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are tidy, but the parameter list duplicates schema content that the agent already receives, so a few lines do not earn their place.

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 write tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter defaults, and return shape. Only the precondition of an active drawing/connection is unstated, which is minor given the surrounding tool set.

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 restates the schema field-for-field (vertex range 3-1000, defaults 'SOLID', 1.0, 'HATCH') with no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema properties already document. The reported 0% coverage is a measurement artifact of the single top-level 'params' property; the nested parameter descriptions are already rich, so this is redundant rather than compensating.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Draw a closed boundary polyline and fill it with a hatch pattern'), and the two-part action implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling autocad_create_boundary, which only draws the boundary. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over autocad_create_boundary or autocad_create_polyline, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., requiring an open document or a live connection, which the sibling list implies matters). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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