Drawing: Plan (commit intent before drawing)

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

Beyond the annotations, which only include destructiveHint=false, the description discloses several behavioral facts: the PlanSpec is stored on the backend, surfaced for reference, and not replayed as a critique. This adds meaningful side-effect and workflow context that annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences deliver purpose, behavioral context, and workflow ordering with no filler. The most important constraint ('Commit before geometry is created') is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct value.

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 description covers the critical context an agent needs: what to do, when to do it, and what happens to the PlanSpec. It could more explicitly connect to drawing_preflight/spec_hash, but the output schema and 89% parameter coverage fill most remaining gaps.

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 89%, so parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond using the term 'PlanSpec', which is acceptable but not an improvement over the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Commit a PlanSpec') and a clear temporal constraint ('before any geometry is created'). It also distinguishes itself from critique tools by stating it is 'not replayed as a critique', making the tool's role in the drawing workflow unmistakable.

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 provides clear workflow context with 'Always call this FIRST in a premium workflow' and explicitly cautions that the PlanSpec is not a critique. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the ordering guidance and exclusion of critique behavior give an agent enough direction to use it correctly.

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