draw_from_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it does not open the source file, rotation is in degrees (float), and explode=true makes the piece editable. These add value beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects, permissions, or undo behavior.

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 concise, with each sentence adding distinct information: main action, a behavioral caveat, and parameter notes. The structure is slightly fragmented with mixed imperative and declarative phrases, but it remains tight and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, the description provides core insertion context, parameter hints for rotation and explode, and a notable behavior (no source file opening). An output schema may cover return values, but the description still omits explanations for several parameters and does not clarify how this relates to sibling tools.

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. It explains rotation (degrees), explode (editable when true), and implicitly nombre as the library piece name, plus x,y as coordinates. However, it does not explain layer, scale, mirror, or create_layer, leaving nearly half of parameters undocumented in the text.

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 inserts a library piece at (x,y), specifying the types included (artefact, plumbing, lighting, installation piece). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'local library' and 'without opening the source file,' which differentiates it from general insert_block or draw_reference tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast.

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 implies use for placing local library fixtures at coordinates, and the phrase 'Sin abrir el archivo de origen' suggests a benefit over alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over insert_block or draw_reference. There is no exclusion or alternative tool mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent.

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