apply_drawing_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses atomic transaction semantics ('in one transaction', 'any error rolls the transaction back'), which is real behavioral value. It omits permission requirements, idempotency, and what happens if the plan is stale relative to the active drawing — meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the transactional guarantee second. Nothing extraneous.

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?

A single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations needs more than atomicity claims. The description covers side-effect behavior but not permissions, return content, or failure modes beyond rollback, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of invocation consequences.

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 0% and the single planId has only a regex pattern, so the description must compensate. It does add one important piece of meaning — the ID must reference a previously previewed plan — but it never mentions planId directly nor clarifies identity/lifetime constraints, leaving partially documented semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb (apply) and resource (drawing plan), and scopes it precisely: a previously previewed plan applied to the same active drawing. This clearly separates it from the sibling preview_drawing_plan (which only previews) and from the primitive draw_* tools.

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 phrase 'previously previewed plan' establishes the required ordering — an agent infers it must first obtain a plan via preview_drawing_plan. However, no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives are named, so it stops short of full routing clarity.

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