Drawing: Preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'validate' aligns with that read-only profile. However, 'normalize' is ambiguous—whether it mutates data or returns normalized values is not clarified. The description adds workflow context but no deeper behavioral details such as default resolution or error behavior.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The main action and timing are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so return values and side-effect warnings are not required in the description. However, the description does not clarify how this tool relates to workflow neighbors (drawing_plan, drawing_finalize, validation_check) or what 'normalize' entails, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among similar tools.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only references 'requirements' generically and does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('validate and normalize') and identifies the resource ('requirements') with a clear workflow marker ('before committing a drawing plan'). It conveys the tool's role effectively, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar validation/checking siblings like drawing_audit 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?

The phrase 'before committing a drawing plan' implies a specific workflow stage, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or mention of sibling tools.

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