drawing_remove

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behaviour — the operation verifies the drawing is gone afterwards and can be guarded by a preimage fingerprint, implying optimistic-concurrency semantics. It stops short of saying what happens when the drawing does not exist or when verification fails.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive action first, then the verification behaviour, then the optional guard. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the core action.

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 destructive four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the post-condition and the concurrency guard; annotations carry the destructiveness. Missing only failure-mode detail (error vs. silent no-op on a missing or mismatched drawing).

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 75%, and the one uncovered parameter (expected_fingerprint, empty schema description) is exactly what the description explains as an optional preimage guard. With the remaining parameters documented in-schema (including the mismatch-aborts rule for expected_layout_id), the description closes the meaningful 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?

A specific verb (remove) applied to a specific resource (an exact drawing), plus the post-condition 'verify absence' and the optional fingerprint guard. It doesn't name the neighbouring tools it differs from (drawing_clear for bulk removal, drawing_update), but 'exact drawing' implicitly scopes it to a single item.

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 the use case (deleting one known drawing, with an optional integrity check), but it never states when to prefer this over drawing_clear or drawing_update, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a valid target_id or an open layout. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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