Update Drawing

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description richly discloses behavior: partial update with omitted fields preserved, automatic nesting of user-provided fields under 'drawing' in the payload, success return of the modified drawing, and detailed error semantics (401/403/404). This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core PATCH semantics and required prerequisites, then adds return/error behavior. The endpoint and API category at the end are supplementary but valuable for an agent. Every sentence contributes, and there is no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the complete behavior: what to send (only changed fields), prerequisites (resolve IDs), return value (modified drawing), and error handling (HTTP statuses). Given a 7-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context: it tells the agent to pass fields as top-level arguments (which are nested internally), and that drawing_area_id and id must resolve to existing parent records. It also explicitly lists required parameters. This exceeds schema alone without duplicating every field description.

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 'Update specified Drawing' with a specific verb and resource. It goes further to describe PATCH semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), which distinguishes this update operation from other drawing tools like create_drawing or update_drawing_revision. The mention of the endpoint and payload nesting removes any ambiguity about what is being updated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to modify an existing drawing identified by drawing_area_id and id. It explicitly instructs to resolve these IDs with the matching list tool first, which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_drawing or update_drawing_revision, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

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