Create/edit all root schematic graphics

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-idempotent/not-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing preservation semantics ('original unknown flags/shared symbol definitions retained') and prerequisite workflow ('original offsets/current hash, preview and backup required'), which are genuine behavioral facts not in the annotations.

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 dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no wasted filler. Each clause either scopes the operation, prevents operator confusion (wires vs lines) or states a prerequisite.

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?

For a destructive multi-operation tool, it covers the key risks: preservation of unknown data, hash-based concurrency, preview-then-apply, and re-inspection after applying. With 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, little is missing; only deeper detail on operation semantics and error behavior is absent.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema carries the field-level detail. The description adds conceptual meaning for several parameters by tying offsets to the original input and calling out the current hash and preview/backup requirements, mapping loosely onto recordOffset, expectedSha256 and confirm.

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 specific verbs (add/delete/resize/restyle) against a precise resource (root drawing lines, circles, arcs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting drawing lines with electrical wires and naming gdf_construct for connections, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

Names one explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use gdf_construct for connections.' Combined with the 'not electrical wires' caveat, this gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not differentiate from other close siblings like gdf_geometry or gdf_edit, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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