create_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that files are written to disk, that the drawing is closed unless drawing_path is supplied (a real persistence side effect), that the title block is auto-filled from properties(), and that retrieved model dimensions and overall dimensions may need checking on assemblies. It does not mention overwrite behavior or required permissions.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then a compact Args block that maps one-to-one to parameters. Slightly dense in the layout/dimension sentence, but no filler.

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 7-parameter file-producing tool with no annotations, this covers output location, persistence, view composition and template behavior well; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps remain around overwriting an existing pdf_path and error behavior for invalid view names.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate and does: views ordering and placement semantics, template naming and .idw path form, scale encoding (0 = fit, 0.2 = 1:5), flat = single-view flat pattern, and drawing_path persistence are all explained. Only instance is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource and deliverable: a 2D drawing of the active part/assembly saved to disk and exported as PDF. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as capture_view (screenshots) or export_document (generic export).

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 context is implied ("PDF for the shop floor", flat-pattern mode for sheet metal parts) rather than stated as when-to-use versus siblings like capture_view or export_document. The closing instruction to read the PDF back to check layout is useful post-call guidance but is not an alternative-selection rule.

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