autocad_create_text

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add mutation context. Instead it largely restates schema fields plus a return shape that the output schema already covers, and says nothing about side effects, undo behavior, or layer auto-creation.

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 format is front-loaded with the verb phrase, then a compact Args list and a Returns line. It is slightly list-heavy and the Returns block duplicates the output schema, but no sentence is wasted or padded.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return value needn't be explained, and parameters are covered. What is missing for a mutation tool is environmental context — whether a drawing must be active and what happens on invalid layer names — leaving it adequate but not complete.

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?

With reported top-level schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and does so: it names all four sub-parameters, gives intent ("lower-left insertion point"), units ("drawing units"), and defaults (2.5, '0'). The nested schema does contain equal or richer detail (patterns, bounds), so this is compensation rather than genuinely new meaning.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Draw a single-line text"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like autocad_create_line or autocad_create_polyline. It does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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 use this tool versus other entity-creation siblings, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., whether a document must be open or a layer current). The agent gets the mechanics but no routing or context cues.

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