add_raw_elements

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 so richly: it discloses that missing version fields are filled, fractional indices are assigned, customData triggers author-stamping while unattributed elements stay anonymous, argument-size caps per host, batching semantics, immediate peer propagation vs delayed storage, and the meaning of a 'NOT PERSISTED' result line.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence conveys a distinct operational fact (attribution, size limits, batching, propagation). It is dense and long but virtually every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, this covers the essential gaps: write semantics, idempotency-adjacent behavior (field filling), permission/attribution model, host limits, batching strategy, and a failure/persistence signal. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema only says a non-empty array of free-form objects, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'elements' are complete Excalidraw element JSON, including how version, index, and customData fields are handled on each item, though it doesn't fully enumerate the element shape.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: 'Add complete Excalidraw elements verbatim (the JSON shape from an .excalidraw file)'. The 'verbatim/raw' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the higher-level add_elements sibling, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives solid how-to guidance (keep arguments under README Limits, batch large scenes, later batches may reference earlier ids), which tells the agent how to invoke it. But it never states when to choose this over add_elements or update_elements, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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