Drawing: Finalize (validate + save + screenshot)

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses exact failure behavior: ToolError on validator/critique errors; warnings only surface under payload['critique']; strict_critique escalates any issue. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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?

Two compact paragraphs: the first front-loads the combined operation, and the second summarizes all important failure/success semantics. Every sentence contributes; the critique-focus list is targeted, not padding.

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?

Together with full schema documentation, an output schema, and the destructiveHint annotation, the description covers what the tool runs, when it fails, and what it returns. Minor ambiguity remains about the default save destination when save_path is omitted, so it is not perfect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters fully. The description reinforces the strict_critique behavior and save/screenshot effects but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 names a specific combined action—validate via an 8-step validator plus six named critique focuses, then save, screenshot, and return the DWG path. This clearly distinguishes it from simpler siblings like drawing_save, drawing_critique, or validation_check.

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 frames the tool as the 'premium completion gate' and explains the strict_critique option, giving clear completion-flow context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for validation-only or save-only needs, so it stops short of a 5.

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