ass_set_drawing

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that drawing_text is re-serialised to canonical integer coordinates, how the \p level is set or defaulted, and exactly what keep_tags=False destroys ('discards all other text'). It even documents the mutation's return shape.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action is the first sentence, followed by parameter-behavior details in a logical order. Length is justified by the zero schema coverage, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs, including destructive behavior and defaults; return values are also given despite an output schema existing. The unexplained doc_id parameter is the one remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully explains index, drawing_text, scale (including the omitted case) and keep_tags. It omits doc_id entirely, leaving the document-targeting semantics unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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: 'Replace the drawing part of line *index*', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/transform tools like ass_get_drawing, ass_transform_drawing and ass_scale_drawing. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explains conditional parameter behavior (what happens to \p when scale is omitted) but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ass_transform_drawing or ass_scale_drawing. Usage is implied rather than guidance.

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