update-drawings

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits. It covers mutation behavior, patching semantics, and the constraint that shape KIND cannot change. It does not detail safety, reversibility, or auth beyond GM-only. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single, well-structured paragraph with clear categories and front-loaded action. No superfluous words. Efficiently conveys key 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?

The description covers major operations, patching behavior, GM-only restriction, and the inability to change shape kind. It lacks return value details (no output schema) and error cases, but for a modification tool with many parameters, it is largely 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the shape KIND constraint not in schema, but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what schema provides. Meets minimum expectation.

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 the tool edits existing DRAWINGS by ID, listing specific operations (move, resize, restyle, change text, toggle hidden/locked/interface). It distinguishes from siblings like create-drawings, delete-drawings, and list-drawings by specifying modification of existing entities.

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 mentions 'Patches only the fields you pass' and 'GM-only', indicating when to use. It references list-drawings for IDs. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough to guide selection.

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