draw_slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose units (mm) and that sketch_index=0 means the latest sketch, which is real behavioral context. But it never says the call mutates the active sketch, what happens if no sketch exists, or whether the geometry is added to an existing sketch—material gaps for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 shape definition and anchor are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a tight per-argument list with no filler. Slightly verbose in restating obvious names, but every line carries meaning.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the gap is purely procedural: a 7-parameter sketch-mutating tool with no annotations should say what state must exist (active document/sketch) and what happens on failure. Geometry semantics are complete; operational context is not.

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% (only 'instance' is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines length as end-to-end, width as twice the end radius (a non-obvious constraint that prevents invalid inputs), and angle as direction in sketch coordinates. Only 'instance' is left to the schema.

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 (draw a slot) and disambiguates the geometry with two synonyms ('oblong hole / rounded-end profile') plus its anchor point. Against siblings like draw_rectangle, draw_circle, draw_arc and draw_polygon, an agent can pick this one without opening the schema.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus draw_rectangle/draw_closed_profile, and no prerequisites such as needing an active sketch or document. Usage is only implied by the parameter list.

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