new_drawing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavior that three standard views and an isometric view are auto-generated, but it stays silent on side effects such as whether the new drawing becomes the active document, whether it is persisted, or what happens if no document is 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 creation action front-loaded and the generated-view detail immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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, so return values need not be described, and the view set is well covered. Still missing for a document-creating tool are the template_path semantics and any statement about state changes or failure when no active document exists.

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% and the single optional parameter template_path (default empty string) is never mentioned in the description. An agent cannot tell from either source what the empty default means (fallback default template?) or what format a path should take, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: "Creates a new 2D drawing from the currently active part or assembly document," and it goes further to state exactly what the output contains (Front/Top/Right 3rd-angle projections plus an Isometric view). The resource is clearly distinguishable from new_part and new_assembly, though it never names those siblings 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?

"From the currently active part or assembly document" implies the prerequisite that an active document must exist, and that other document sources are not accepted. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to related tools such as save_document or export_document for the resulting drawing.

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