create_techdraw_page

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

The annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world mutation. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — '(undoable)' — which is not in the annotations, but says nothing about failure modes, template resolution, or side effects on the target document.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the undoable trait are both stated immediately.

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, but for a three-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions the definition leaves the document target and template requirements ambiguous, which is not enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it only touches 'template' via 'SVG template' and leaves 'name' and 'doc_name' entirely unexplained, including which document the page is created in.

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: 'Create a TechDraw 2D drawing sheet', and names the template input as an SVG. An agent can distinguish it from export_techdraw_page or add_techdraw_view, though the description does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_techdraw_view or export_techdraw_page, and no prerequisites are stated — e.g. whether a document must already be open or whether the template file must exist on disk.

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