Audit Drawing

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by explicitly stating 'This mutates the drawing,' explaining that fixes are already applied and require a save, and detailing the live COM backend quirk with null counts and detail: 'unavailable'. It also describes the result lists (fixes and errors) and their meaning, providing exceptional transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action and output, then warns about the mutation, explains the fixes and errors lists, and ends with a backend-specific note. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies all essential context: what the tool does, that it mutates the drawing, what the return fields mean, and how to retain the changes. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description focuses on behavior and outputs, which is appropriate. A score of 4 reflects the no-parameter baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Audit the drawing' and clearly states the outcome: 'repair every fixable structural problem, and report it.' It distinguishes the tool from read-only analysis or validation tools by emphasizing that it mutates the drawing. The action is unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you want to fix and audit structural issues—and provides actionable guidance to save afterwards to persist fixes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a non-mutating review (e.g., drawing_critique) would be preferred. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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