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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it creates output in the signed-in Drint space, returns a one-hour download link, explains PDF/AI spot-colour and SVG layer handling, and states plan limits.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with the action and return value, then adds formats, code/type selection, dimensions, quota, and the make_dieline alternative. It is dense but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, format details, dimensions, and the most important sibling alternative. It still leaves requiredness ambiguous because no parameters are marked required, and it does not explain name or lang.

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 adds meaning for key parameters: code examples (FEFCO/ECMA), type ids from list_dielines, and that length, width, and height are inside dimensions in mm. However, schema coverage is only 63%, name and lang are not addressed, and the description mentions AI output while the format enum only allows pdf or svg.

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: draw a print-ready dieline at an exact size and return a download link. It distinguishes the tool from make_dieline by pointing die-maker DXF/CF2 requests there, and from list_dielines by using that sibling only for type ids.

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 explicitly says to give a standard FEFCO/ECMA code or a Drint type id from list_dielines, and it routes die-maker DXF/CF2 work to make_dieline. It also clarifies the Free plan quota versus Pro unlimited usage.

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