Update Drawing Revision

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success and performs a partial update, which is helpful. It does not contradict annotations. Some additional context (e.g., permissions) would be beneficial, but overall transparency is good.

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 very concise: two sentences plus API endpoint info. It front-loads the key action and partial update behavior. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: update operation, partial update, return value, required params. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple update tool it is fairly 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 repeats required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter explanations are given.

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 revision and specifies it performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed'). However, it uses 'Drawings' interchangeably with 'Drawing Revision', which could cause slight confusion. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_drawing' by targeting revisions.

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 explains when to use the tool (updating an existing drawing revision) and that it only changes supplied fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The guidance is implicit but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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