update_title_block

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies the file, requires the drawing to be active, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the verb and resource, with no extraneous information. Every phrase adds value.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description lacks crucial context for a mutation tool: prerequisites (e.g., drawing must be active), error conditions, and whether changes are saved automatically. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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?

The schema describes the parameter 'input_data' as 'The input data value' with additionalProperties: true, which is vague. The description partially compensates by listing example fields (title, drawing number, approval fields), but does not fully define the structure or constraints, leading to a baseline score based on high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function (updating title block fields), specifies the resource (active drawing), and lists example metadata fields (title, drawing number, approval fields), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_sheet_format 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 description implies usage when documentation alignment is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context.

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