Render an Approved Reference Recreation

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it resolves and embeds real assets, produces an 'exact absolute-coordinate editable' artifact, and rejects stale approvals. Annotations already signal non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds process detail without contradicting them. It does not mention failure modes or side effects beyond rejection.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and the output type, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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 is complex, with multiple steps and sibling tools like prepare_reference_recreation and validate_reference_drawio, but the description does not mention prerequisites, relationship to siblings, or error handling. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required, but the missing workflow context leaves the description only partially complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain planId, revision, or approvalToken. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which may lead to incorrect invocation. The description's mention of 'approved real assets' does not map to these specific parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Resolve approved real assets, embed them, and render an exact absolute-coordinate editable .drawio artifact.' The verb 'render' plus the specific resource (approved reference recreation) and the distinguishing behavior 'Rejects stale approvals' make it stand apart from siblings like create_drawio.

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 description provides clear context: it is for rendering approved reference recreations and rejects stale approvals, implying it should be used when current approval exists. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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