drop_master

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It only mentions the return value ('Returns shape_id') but does not indicate that this operation mutates the document, whether the stencil or master must already exist, how errors are handled, or if the action is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant lack of transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and primary output.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain how optional parameters (angle, flip_x, weight, label) affect the result, any prerequisites (e.g., loaded stencil), or failure behavior. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of operational context.

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 by explaining parameters. It only clarifies x and y ('in inches'), leaving the other six parameters (angle, label, flip_x, master, stencil, weight) unexplained. The term 'stencil master' hints at the relationship between stencil and master, but the description falls far short of documenting the full set of options.

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 clearly states the action ('Drop a stencil master'), the resource ('stencil master'), and the location ('at (x, y) in inches'). It also mentions the return value ('Returns shape_id'), which distinguishes it from sibling drawing tools like draw_wire or add_label. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for placing pre-defined stencil masters at coordinates, which is distinct from drawing wires or adding labels. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., loading a stencil) or exclusions. Guidance is solely implied by the verb and resource.

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