ass_split_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that leading commands before the first m/n become their own part, that nothing is dropped, and that coordinates remain in the drawing's own scale space. It does not state whether the document is mutated or what errors occur, so it falls short of a 5.

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 behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the leading-commands caveat follows immediately. The long inline return signature is dense but earns its place as a reference; overall little waste.

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 the detailed return enumeration is partly redundant, and the real gaps are parameter semantics and mutation/error behavior with no annotations. The description is adequate for the split semantics but incomplete about inputs.

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?

All three parameters (text, index, doc_id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains their meaning or how they are resolved against each other. The only hints come incidentally from the mirrored return keys, which is not enough to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (split a drawing) and defines the exact output unit (one string per subpath), plus the edge case that no subpath is ever dropped. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ass_join_drawings, ass_drawing_to_svg, or ass_transform_drawing.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention that split followed by ass_join_drawings is lossless, which points at a round-trip editing workflow. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement or when-not-to-use exclusion relative to alternatives like ass_drawing_info or ass_parse_text.

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