drawing_create

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding real context: it discloses that the tool reports coordinate/property fidelity rather than assuming them, implying the resulting shape type or points may differ from what was requested. It still doesn't disclose failure modes or whether partial writes can occur.

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?

Two tight sentences with the verb and the verification behavior front-loaded; nothing is padded. Slightly dense phrasing ("native drawing", "fidelity") costs a bit of immediate clarity.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the mention that it reports coordinate/property fidelity usefully substitutes for return-value documentation. However, it leaves the shape-to-points relationship, the target tab requirement, and the layout-ID guardrail entirely to the schema, which is thinly described.

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 38% across 8 parameters, including a nested points array and a free-form properties object. The description mentions no parameters at all — not shape, points cardinality per shape, target_id, or the expected_layout_id precondition — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Create a native drawing") and adds a distinctive post-condition: verifying the new entity ID and actual shape type. This differentiates it well from drawing_update/drawing_import, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus drawing_import, drawing_update, or drawing_create alternatives, and no prerequisites are given in prose. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'Create', which an agent must infer.

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