select_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool sets a process-scoped default target, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention input validation, behavior on invalid IDs, overwriting previous selections, or return values. This leaves meaningful gaps for a state-changing tool.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, front-loading the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, but lacks details about return values (no output schema) and prerequisite steps like listing drawings to get a valid ID. It is adequate for a straightforward selection operation but not fully complete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about drawingId beyond its name. It does not explain where to obtain the ID, whether it must reference an existing drawing, or any format expectations. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 states the tool selects an Excalidraw drawing as the default target for subsequent tools. This is a specific verb+resource+effect combination that also distinguishes it from siblings like get_selected_drawing (retrieve) and list_drawings (list).

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 provides clear context: use this tool to set a default target before invoking other tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'subsequent tools' implies the intended workflow. Since no alternatives are named, it stops short of a 5.

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