Change placed drawings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: '(one undo step)' signals reversibility, and the return shape [{guid, drawing} | {error}] discloses per-item partial-failure behavior. It also flags the source-view immutability constraint, which no annotation covers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and undo semantics before the field enumeration, and the hard constraint about source views follows immediately. The long run-on field list is dense but mostly earns its place as a scannable overview; a bulleted form would read better.

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 batch mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, undo behavior, and the key Archicad 26 limitation. It omits the array cap (maxItems 200) and any permission/round-trip notes, minor gaps given the rich schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents guid, position, anchor, scale/ratio, frame, title, and the rest. The description's field list adds a quick orientation but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Changes) and resource (drawings already placed on layouts) and then enumerates the exact properties that can be modified. This lets an agent clearly separate it from siblings like place_drawing, delete_drawings, and update_drawings without opening the schema.

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?

Establishes the when (drawings already placed) and gives an explicit when-not plus fallback: 'The source view of a drawing cannot be changed in Archicad 26 — place a new drawing and delete the old one instead.' It routes the agent to place_drawing/delete_drawings for that case, though it doesn't spell out the contrast with update_drawings.

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