Update Drawing Discipline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object on success. This provides extra context beyond annotations, but does not cover potential side effects or permission requirements. Score 3 because annotations carry most of the burden and description adds moderate 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 concise with 4 sentences covering purpose, usage, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor typo ('Drawings' instead of 'Drawing Discipline') and the last two sentences could be combined, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the update behavior, partial update, return of modified object, required parameters, and API endpoint details. It provides sufficient context for a simple update operation. Could be improved by mentioning any constraints on the name field or required permissions.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description restates required parameters (project_id, id, name) and identifies their roles in the endpoint URL, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Update drawing discipline' and specifies it updates existing drawings with only supplied fields changed. The verb and resource are identifiable, though the resource name in description says 'Drawings' instead of 'Drawing Discipline', which is slightly imprecise. It distinguishes from other tools in the sibling list by naming the specific resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar update tools like 'update_drawing'.

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 minimal usage context: 'Use this to update an existing Drawings (only the supplied fields are changed).' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Given the large sibling list with many update tools, the lack of guidance on tool selection is a significant gap.

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