add_section_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention outcome, side effects (e.g., modification of parent view), errors, or required permissions, which is insufficient for a drawing modification tool.

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 description is a single sentence with no extra words, which is concise. However, it sacrifices completeness; it could be expanded to include key behavioral details without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and performs a non-trivial operation. The description does not explain return value, error conditions, or constraints (e.g., parent view must exist, section line orientation). This is inadequate for an agent to predict behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Name of the parent view', 'X position on sheet (mm)') are clear. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Add a section view to the drawing' clearly states the action and target resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_drawing_view' which also adds a view, making the distinction less helpful.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_drawing_view). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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