Drawing: Export DWG

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the session-binding side effect on a live seat, the headless ODA File Converter dependency, the exact refusal shape (`capability: "dwg_write"`), and the call-time re-evaluation of the ezdxf flag. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the key distinction in the opening clause and each sentence carries operational content. Some detail (AcSaveAsType naming, ezdxf flag mechanics) is dense and slightly tangential, keeping it short of maximal conciseness, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the failure modes, dependency, and prerequisite in full. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or fall back.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the version-validation behavior ('unknown version is refused by name with the six'), which is behavioral rather than a schema-level clarification of parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write a real DWG') and immediately distinguishes it from the nearest sibling by warning it is 'not a DXF under a .dwg name.' An agent can tell this apart from drawing_export_dxf without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Check system_capabilities first'), a refusal/failure path ('when that is absent the call is refused'), and routes to the alternative drawing_export_dxf. It does not, however, explicitly compare against drawing_save_as as a preferred choice, so the when-to-choose guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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