autocad_dim_angular

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the return shape ( status/type/handle) and notes the layer is created if missing, but says nothing about what entity is modified, undo behavior, or required drawing state.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args/Returns block; every line carries information. The nested indentation style is slightly verbose but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns block is redundant rather than necessary. Given annotations cover the mutation safety profile, the description is adequate, but for a tool that writes a new dimension entity it omits where the entity lands (model space vs layout) and any document-state prerequisites.

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 compensate, and it does: it enumerates vertex, p1/p2 as a point on each ray, offset as arc radius from the vertex and must be > 0, and layer defaulting to 'DIMENSIONS'. The geometric intent of p1/p2 (one per ray) is genuinely clarifying rather than a restatement.

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 precise verb and geometric resource: dimensioning the angle at a vertex between rays to two points. That is enough to distinguish it from autocad_dim_aligned and autocad_dim_radius without opening any schema. It stops just short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 statement of when to use this versus the other dimension tools, no prerequisite (an open document, current layer state), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the geometry described.

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