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

Annotations already state this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it appends rather than replaces, generates a caption from the drawing/tool/conclusion, numbers the figure, and preserves vector graphics.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then covering captioning, numbering, and vector preservation. It wastes no space and is appropriately sized for the operation.

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?

With an output schema and complete parameter documentation, return values and parameter details need not be in the description. The description covers the key action and notebook side effects, though it does not explain the _files/_subject context parameters.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description reinforces defaults for tab, caption, drawing, and entry_id, but adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 gives a specific verb and resource—"Put a drawing ... into the lab notebook as a numbered figure"—and lists examples (chart, gel, map). It clearly distinguishes this from drawing/export siblings by framing the action as appending to a notebook entry.

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?

It makes the usage context clear: take an on-screen drawing and append it to the open entry or a named entry. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as export_map_svg or draw_gel, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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