make_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the side effect (writes SVG, PDF and PNG into workspace/drawings/<doc>/), the exact return payload (paths plus a PNG image), and the default scale-selection behavior. It does not say whether existing files are overwritten or how expensive the operation is.

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 core capability and the output guarantee are front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a short `scale` clarification. The title-block parenthetical lists details that could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Return values are fully covered in prose, so the absent output schema is not a gap. However, a 7-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage with only one parameter documented leaves an agent guessing about `doc` format, `objects` filtering and the effect of toggling `hidden_lines`.

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% across 7 parameters, yet the description explains only `scale` (paper:model ratio with an example and the default rule). The required `doc`, plus `sheet`, `author`, `objects` and `hidden_lines`, get no explanation at all, and the `objects` subset filter is a substantive omission.

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 a precisely specified resource: a third-angle engineering drawing with named views, hidden-line removal, dimensions, diameter callouts and a title block. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render_view, section_view and export_dxf, which produce different artifacts.

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 output description implies this is the tool for multi-view orthographic documentation rather than a presentation render or a raw export, but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

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