add_to_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers side effects: saving to assets/library/<categoria>/<nombre>.dwg, indexing, the origen transformation with real-world rationale, rotation correction with an example, and overwrite behavior requiring confirm=true. This is exceptionally transparent for an unannotated 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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, then provides necessary parameter explanations. It is somewhat long and runs as a single paragraph, but every sentence contributes useful information, so it remains reasonably concise for a complex 7-parameter tool.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and schema descriptions, the description is complete for the tool's complexity: it covers the target path, indexing side effect, parameter selection, transformations, and overwrite semantics. The output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. It gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly in realistic scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains handles vs block, each origen value ('min', 'centro', 'dejar'), rotation with the 357.588/2.412 example, confirm's overwrite role, and location-implied nombre/categoria. All parameter semantics are meaningfully covered beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Guarda un objeto del dibujo activo como pieza propia de la biblioteca' and even gives the exact storage path. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like draw_from_library or index_library by framing it as the way to add new assets without a catalog.

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 explicitly states when this tool is appropriate ('Es la via para sumar assets nuevos... sin pasar por ningun catalogo') and gives concrete selection guidance (handles= vs block=, and 'Si es un bloque conviene block='). It does not explicitly contrast with every sibling tool, but the practical usage context is clear.

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