drawing_new

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a destructive/idempotent behavior via '(or reset)' which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what happens to existing content when resetting. Partial disclosure only.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and parameter hints after. Dense but no wasted sentences; some parenthetical Japanese examples could be seen as slightly heavy but are informative rather than 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?

For an 8-param construction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers several key parameters well (scale, paper, names) but omits preset, description, and group_scales. An agent would still need to guess at these, leaving meaningful 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for scale ('denominator, 100 for 1/100'), paper values, and the group_names/layer_names examples with real key formats. However, preset, description, and group_scales are entirely undocumented, leaving 3 of 8 parameters unexplained.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Create (or reset) a named drawing'), and the parenthetical reset behavior distinguishes it somewhat. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling it differs from (e.g., drawing_update, drawing_add), but the create/reset framing is specific enough to identify the resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus drawing_update (which presumably modifies an existing drawing), drawing_add, or drawing_import_jww. The '(or reset)' hint implies idempotency but the conditions under which reset is appropriate are not stated.

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