Mechanical: Sheet From Spec

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

Beyond the sparse `destructiveHint: false` annotation, the description discloses validation-before-transaction, rollback under an anyio shield on failure or cancellation, and named refusal reasons. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a transaction-scoped drawing tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by transactional guarantees and refusal conditions. Every sentence adds meaningful operational detail without 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?

For a complex nested-spec batch tool with an output schema, the description covers transaction semantics, validation ordering, rollback behavior, and refusal cases. Nothing critical about how to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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% and the nested `spec` shape is already documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that parts are validated before the transaction and by showing the nested error path format (`parts[1]: segments[0].d_outer`), which clarifies how the spec is interpreted and how validation failures are reported.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: drawing several parts, their views, and their dimensions inside one transaction. It implicitly distinguishes the batch sheet operation from the sibling `mech_part_draw` by emphasizing multiple parts and a shared transaction, so an agent can tell them apart without opening both schemas.

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 makes clear this is for multi-part sheet creation with atomic rollback and lists the refusal conditions. It references `mech_part_draw` for part-level refusals, which helps route the agent, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the single-part tool or other alternatives.

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