add_north_arrow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description does not disclose whether the drawing is modified in place, what permissions are needed, or what happens to existing annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is too sparse to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with four undocumented parameters; brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain required inputs and behavior. It states the basic purpose but leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly, especially regarding drawing_id, position, size, and layer.

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?

There are 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including required drawing_id and a nested position object. The description mentions none of these parameters, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. An agent must infer all parameter meanings from names alone.

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: 'Add a north arrow symbol annotation for a map drawing.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like create_box or add_dimension_linear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar annotation tools such as add_scale_bar or add_legend.

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 phrase 'for a map drawing' implies a context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing information is provided.

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