drawing_file

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two valuable things: the drawing is kept apart from the current part, and 'new' returns frame, title block and free areas in sheet mm. It says 'close' discards unsaved work, which is useful. However, it is silent on whether 'save' overwrites an existing file, whether open/save/export fail on missing paths, and whether operations are undoable.

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 action enumeration is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph adds two genuinely non-redundant facts (drawing/part separation, the return contents of 'new'). The nested parentheticals make it dense but every clause carries information.

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 four-parameter, multi-mode document tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition does real work but not enough: sibling disambiguation, error behavior, and the save/export overwrite semantics are all missing, leaving the agent to guess on the risky paths.

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% (bare titles and defaults only), so the description has to carry parameter meaning and mostly does: it maps 'part' to the saved model whose views are shown, 'path' to .slddrw for open/save and to PDF/DXF/DWG/PNG/JPG/TIF for export, and 'sheet' to A4-upright or A3..A0. Gaps remain — the schema default for sheet is 'A3' while the description foregrounds 'A4' upright, and the interaction of 'part' with the other actions is unstated.

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 names a concrete resource (the current drawing's document) and enumerates five specific actions — new, open, save, export, close — with the argument shapes each accepts, so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It loses a point because several siblings (open_document, close_document, save_document, export, make_drawing) sound like they cover the same ground and the description never says how this tool differs from them.

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?

Usage is implied by the per-action argument notes: 'new' for fresh sheets, 'open'/'save' with a .slddrw path, 'export' for PDF/DXF/PNG output, 'close' without saving. But there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling open_document, close_document, save_document or export tools, which is the most consequential decision an agent faces here.

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