purge_drawing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions what is purged but does not state that the operation is destructive, whether it can be undone, or what qualifies as 'unused.' This is similar to the update_drive example where lack of such details warranted a low score.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information or repetition of the tool name.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers its behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit warning about irreversibility, but for a simple, parameterless command, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and since there is nothing to describe, the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. It appropriately relies on the schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('purge') targeting specific resources ('unused layers, blocks, linetypes, styles') within the drawing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like erase_last or erase_entity, which remove entities rather than clean up drawing definitions.

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 provides clear context: it is used for cleaning up unused drawing definitions, a typical CAD maintenance operation. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the purpose is self-evident and adequate for a parameterless tool.

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