autocad_dim_aligned

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

Annotations already declare writability (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructiveness, and non-idempotence. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the layer is auto-created if missing, the sign of offset picks which side the dimension lands on, and the return is a JSON status/type/handle object. It still omits preconditions such as an active drawing or connection, which is the main remaining gap.

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 is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by tightly scoped Args/Returns sections with no filler. The Returns clause partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only wasted content.

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?

Purpose, the four meaningful inputs, and the immediate effect (layer auto-creation) are all covered, and an output schema exists so return details need not be repeated. What's missing is environmental context — required document/connection state and drawing-unit assumptions — for what is a write operation on the drawing.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines p1/p2 as the measured points, offset as perpendicular distance with sign selecting the side, and layer with its 'DIMENSIONS' default. That compensates well for the coverage gap, though it doesn't clarify units or what happens on a zero-length p1-p2.

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 gives a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('dimension'), plus the geometric constraint ('true-distance', 'parallel to the line between two points') that separates it from angular/radius dimension siblings. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it, keeping this short of a 5.

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 geometry: measuring the straight distance between two points, at any angle, with an offset. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to autocad_dim_angular / autocad_dim_radius as alternatives, and no prerequisites (open document, connection) are stated.

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