web_draw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: scripts, foreignObject and event attributes are rejected, and external references are refused unless the '--allow-external' flag is used. This is real constraint disclosure an agent cannot infer, though it omits overwrite/create semantics for an existing path.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then constraints, then follow-up routing. No filler and each sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers the content safety rules and the follow-up tools. What it lacks is any statement of success/return behavior or whether authoring an existing path overwrites it, which matters for a 3-required-param mutation tool.

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 all three parameters (svg, path, expected_rev) are already documented in the schema, including the stale-revision retry behavior. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Author a pure SVG asset file.' The content restrictions (scripts, foreignObject, event attributes) sharpen what kind of file this produces, distinguishing it from generic write tools like web_set_text or web_css. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling by name, keeping it at 4.

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 tells you what to do after authoring ('Reference it afterwards with web_insert_section or web_set_attr'), which gives useful sequencing context. It does not state when this tool should be chosen over sibling write tools (web_set_attr, web_css_set) or what conditions make it the wrong choice beyond the SVG-specific rejections.

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