drawing_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: missing fields are not merged from the existing entity, so this is effectively a full replacement. However, it stays silent on permissions, what happens when the id does not exist, and whether the drawing must be open.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested free-form 'entity' object, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks enough context to know what a valid entity payload looks like or what side effects to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters, and it largely fails. It explains 'id' only obliquely via "same id" and reduces 'entity' to the vague phrase "new content", while the required 'name' parameter is never mentioned at all.

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?

"Replace one entity (same id) with new content" gives a specific verb (replace), a resource (entity), and a scope qualifier (same id), which distinguishes it from siblings like drawing_add and drawing_remove. It is clear what the tool does, though it never states the domain (drawing) or names the alternative tools explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as drawing_add or drawing_remove. The reader must infer from "replace" that this is the tool for modifying an existing entity rather than adding or deleting one.

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