Update Drawing Discipline

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it performs a partial update and returns the modified object. It does not discuss idempotency (annotation says false), error handling, permissions, or side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 three sentences but the third sentence is a run-on that mixes required parameters, API version, and endpoint. It is moderately concise but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points). Some information (API version, endpoint) may be redundant with the schema.

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?

For a simple update tool with 3 mandatory parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: action (update), partial update behavior, return value, required fields, and endpoint. It lacks explanation of constraints (e.g., unique names) but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with clear descriptions (URL path vs request body). The tool description only lists the required parameters without adding new semantic information. Since schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are adequate, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates a drawing discipline, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource. However, it inconsistently refers to 'Drawings' (plural) instead of 'Drawing Discipline', which could cause confusion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_drawing' by focusing on disciplines, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'update_drawing_discipline_project_v1_0'.

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 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update), which guides usage. However, it does not provide context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_drawing_discipline' or 'update_drawing'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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