create-drawings

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it creates drawings, supports per-drawing error isolation, returns created IDs, and is GM-only. It explains default stroke behavior and flags like hidden/interface. No contradictions.

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 moderately concise given the complexity; it front-loads the purpose and covers key parameters efficiently. A minor reduction in verbosity could improve clarity, but it is well-structured.

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?

The description covers usage, parameter details, behavior (error isolation, GM-only), and return value (created ids). For a tool with many parameters and no output schema, it is remarkably complete.

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 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the coordinate origin (top-left absolute), shape type specifics, and default styles (e.g., 'default stroke makes a bare shape visible'). This enriches the schema definitions.

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 it places DRAWINGS (GM annotation shapes) on a scene, enumerating shape types, coordinate system, styling options, and special flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create-tiles or create-lights by specifying the exact use case (secret-area boxes, trap outlines, zone labels).

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 implies usage for GM-only annotations and mentions per-drawing error isolation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create-tiles or create-lights. The context of sibling tools is not directly addressed.

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