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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: changes are made as a new version, earlier versions remain in the studio, and credits are spent (usually 60 to 600 per change). These details are consistent with destructiveHint=false and provide cost/versioning context that an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition and examples, then covers versioning, cost, and the required follow-up call. Every sentence adds relevant operational context with 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?

Given the mutation complexity, the description covers versioning, cost, and post-call workflow, and an output schema exists for return values. The main omission is guidance on where to get drawing_id before calling, though the sibling tools make that inferable.

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 coverage is 50%. The 'change' parameter is already documented in the schema and the description adds useful examples, but 'drawing_id' has no schema description and is not explained in the description, so the definition only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing one of the user's CAD drawings in words. It gives concrete natural-language examples and distinguishes the operation from read/list/start siblings by emphasizing modification via drafter.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: when the user asks to change a CAD drawing in words, with multiple examples. It also says to call get_cad_drawing afterward, but it does not explicitly name when-not conditions or point to the exact sibling for obtaining drawing_id.

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