draw_svg

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the coordinate box in canvas mm, aspect-ratio preservation, the fill/hatching limitation, and the asynchronous 'Returns a job_id' contract.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action, sizing semantics, and return value front-loaded; no filler and every clause is actionable.

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?

Covers the essential action, units, aspect ratio, content suitability, and async return. With 7 undocumented params and no output schema, gaps remain around 'order', 'speed', and how to retrieve the resulting job, which sibling tools like get_job would address.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully explains the x/y/w/h box and aspect-ratio behavior, but leaves 'order' (default 'human'), 'speed', and the 'svg' payload itself completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draw an SVG') and adds the sizing semantics (fitted into box in canvas mm, aspect ratio kept). It clearly implies a physical/plotted output versus the sibling preview_svg, but it never names an alternative to fully disambiguate the pair.

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?

Offers content-level guidance ('Line art works best; fills are not hatched'), which helps an agent choose suitable input. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition and never distinguishes itself from the sibling preview_svg or explains when to prepare a scene instead.

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