cad_drawing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description consistently lists 'delete' as an action, adding context about confirm-driven deletion via schema but not restating it. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the action dispatch mechanism, supported export formats (svg/dxf/pdf), view types, dimension standards, and GD&T symbols. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief Chinese coordinating phrase, bulleted action semantics, and an explicit not-to-use section. Every sentence contributes, and the bullet format makes the multi-action behavior scannable. It is appropriately sized for a tool with seven distinct operations.

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's complexity (7 actions), the description covers every action with relevant detail, states output formats, and provides sibling-tool exclusions. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. The only minor omission is not explicitly warning about the delete confirmation, but the schema's 'confirm' parameter covers that, and the destructive hint annotation already flags it.

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 100%, so the heavy lifting is done by the schema. However, the description adds semantic meaning beyond raw parameter names: ISO 129-1 for dimensions, GD&T feature-control frames, paper sizes A0-A4, and the mapping of actions to their purposes. This enriches the agent's understanding of how parameters combine, though it doesn't define every property in prose.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create, edit or export an engineering drawing.' It then enumerates all dispatched actions (create, add_view, add_section, add_dimension, add_tolerance, delete, export) with concrete definitions, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools in the 'When not to use' section. This is far beyond a vague or tautological purpose.

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 explicitly provides a 'When not to use' section naming cad_render for preview images, cad_file for interop files, and cad_object for geometry edits. It also implicitly maps each action to its intended drawing scenario, such as ISO 129-1 dimensions and GD&T frames. This gives clear decision guidance for agent tool selection.

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