make_drawing

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it names the sheet orientations per size, the auto-scale rule, the dimensioning/ hole-callout policy, the title-block contents, and that it returns `problems` to be checked with check_drawing. What it does not disclose is what happens on failure or whether an existing file at path is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then layered detail in descending importance, with zero filler sentences. It is dense and the parenthetical asides ('4X ...', sheet size ranges) compete for attention, but each carries real operational information rather than restating the schema.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is close to self-sufficient: it gives the agent the prerequisite step, the output artifact, the view/dimension behavior, the return signal (`problems` → check_drawing) and the follow-up workflow. The unresolved gaps are the meaning of `path` and what occurs if the target file already 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: `sheet` values and their upright/landscape orientation, `scale` with a concrete '1:2' example and the default auto-scale behavior, and `keep_open` semantics. The required `path` parameter is never explained — it is only obliquely gestured at via 'the drawing refers to its file', leaving the agent to guess whether it is an output file path or a source model path.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Make a manufacturing drawing of the current part') and enumerates the output formats (PDF, .slddrw, DXF, DWG) plus the view set, which is far beyond a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling drawing-entry points (build_drawing, drawing_file), so an agent must infer which one to call from context alone.

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?

Strong on operating context: it states the prerequisite 'Save the part first (save_document)' and explains the keep_open=True path for refining with 'the other drawing tools'. What it lacks is an explicit contrast with build_drawing / build vs. refine workflows or a 'do not use when' clause, so the alternative-selection logic remains implied.

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