autocad_new_document

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

With destructiveHint=true already set, the description goes beyond the flag by naming exactly what is destroyed ('Discards any in-memory (unsaved) drawing held by the ezdxf backend') and by describing backend divergence (ezdxf vs COM file extensions, freestanding backend starting state). It does not mention error behavior or permissions, so not a 5.

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 purpose, then the destructive caveat, then backend note, then Args/Returns. Every sentence carries information relevant to invoking the tool correctly; nothing is 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 line is supplementary rather than load-bearing. The description covers mutation behavior, backend variants, and both parameters; only error/edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens when the target path already exists) is absent.

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 description enumerates both params with meaning beyond their names, including the '.dxf (ezdxf) or .dwg (COM)' extension constraint and the full units enum with default. The schema itself also carries rich per-param descriptions, so this largely reinforces rather than rescues the schema.

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+resource ('Create a new, empty drawing') and the activation side-effect ('make it the active document'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling autocad_initialize_drawing, so an agent must still infer which one creates versus initializes.

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?

The description explains conditional parameter behavior (omitting path keeps the drawing unsaved) but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to autocad_open_document, autocad_initialize_drawing, or autocad_save_document. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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