drawing_purge

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the consequential details — that this mutates document state and deletes unreferenced layers, blocks, and styles. It does not say whether the purge is reversible via undo or whether it should be wrapped in a transaction, which are the remaining gaps given siblings like transaction_begin/undo exist.

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 action and gated with a warning before the labeled side-effect and disambiguation lines. There is mild redundancy — 'unused' appears in the opening line, the side-effects line, and the disambiguation line — but no sentence is wasted.

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 no explanation, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. The description covers mutation, scope, and side-effects; only the reversibility/undo story is left unstated for a destructive document-wide operation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is scoped entirely by document state rather than arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Purge unused drawing resources from the active document') plus the exact target set (layers, blocks, styles). It is distinguishable from neighbors like drawing_audit or object_delete by its 'unused/referenced' scope, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Gives a positive trigger ('clean up drawing before export') and an explicit exclusion ('only when removal is intended'), which is meaningful for an irreversible-feeling operation. No named alternative is offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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