New Drawing

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

Annotations are sparse (only destructiveHint false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds value by disclosing that bootstrap=True seeds specific linetypes and layers, and that disabling it produces a vanilla DXF. It does not mention how the new drawing interacts with the current open drawing, but what it does disclose is meaningful and not contradictory.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but is concise and useful for reinforcing default behavior. No filler or irrelevant content.

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 relatively simple, an output schema exists, and the input schema fully documents parameters. The description covers the main behavioral nuance (bootstrap) and the optional template. The only minor gap is not addressing what happens to the current drawing state, but given destructiveHint false and the presence of an output schema, this is not critical.

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% and both parameters already have descriptive text. The description mostly restates what the schema provides (template path, bootstrap layer/linetype seeding), so it adds little beyond the structured field documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new empty drawing'), and specifies the optional template (.dwt). The word 'empty' helps distinguish it from drawing_open or drawing_save_as, and the bootstrap explanation adds clarity about what the tool produces beyond a blank document.

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 usage context is implied: use this when starting a new drawing. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as drawing_open, drawing_save_as, or template_apply_layers. With nearly 170 sibling tools, some routing guidance would materially help an agent.

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