generate_drawing_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a strong job: it discloses that the tool saves a .SLDDRW and PDF, enforces sheet layout without overlap, checks read-back geometry, and reports unfittable title-block text as an overlap with a hint. It omits some mutation side effects from the main text, such as the default write_model_properties behavior, but overall provides substantial behavioral context.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and then organized into useful detail paragraphs. It is dense but every sentence adds relevant information about output contents, layout guarantees, and title-block text handling; minor tightening could improve it but it is not bloated.

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?

This is a complex drawing-generation tool, and the description covers the key output, layout rules, saved files, and failure hints. Because an output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter, but it could have mentioned assembly BOM behavior or model-property writes to be fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for title_block_text_height_mm and the DWG NO./TITLE shrink-to-fit behavior. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but given the rich schema, this is appropriate added value.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete A3 drawing of a part or assembly in one call.' It further scopes the tool by listing the exact package contents (ISO frame, title block, views, dimensions, notes), which clearly distinguishes it from lower-level drawing siblings like create_drawing_view or add_note.

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 'in one call' and the detailed package description imply this is for generating a complete A3 drawing rather than individual view operations. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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