Update drawings from their views

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the workaround mechanism (opening each affected layout so Archicad refreshes outdated auto-update drawings), the temporary manual-to-automatic switch controlled by includeManual, and the per-drawing statusBefore/statusAfter return shape. Annotations flag mutation/destructiveness, and the description explains what is actually being changed and that it is temporary.

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 purpose and then the input modes, with the implementation detail and return format last. Dense and mostly efficient, though the parenthetical explanation of the layout-refresh mechanism is a long clause that could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return (statusBefore/statusAfter values and counts). Combined with the disclosed refresh mechanism and input modes, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-selection semantics (drawings vs layouts vs all) and calls out the includeManual default of true, which helps an agent understand that manual drawings are refreshed by default. It does not restate GUID formats, which the schema already covers in detail.

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+resource ('Refreshes placed drawings from their source views') and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming the input modes and explaining why a direct update call isn't used (Archicad 26 limitation). An agent can distinguish this from modify_drawings, place_drawing, and delete_drawings without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for selecting among the three input modes (drawing guids, layouts, or all: true) and names an alternative route ('Publishing a set (publish_publisher_set) also updates the drawings it contains'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing context is strong.

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