Add Projection Group

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the 'add' action. The description adds useful detail about the views parameter and the concept of a multi-view projection group, but it does not disclose potential side effects, dependencies (e.g., needing an existing page), or failure modes. This is acceptable given the simple nature of the operation, but it is not overly transparent.

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 (two short sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the views list could be formatted more cleanly. Overall, it is efficient and earns its place.

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?

Given the schema provides no parameter descriptions, the tool description should explain all parameters and any required context. It only partially covers `views` and `body`, omitting `page` and `name`, and does not mention return values or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that requires two mandatory parameters and likely needs an existing drawing page.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains the `views` parameter (with example codes) and implicitly mentions `body`. It does not explain `page` or `name`, leaving their roles ambiguous beyond what the schema names indicate. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions.

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 action ('add'), the resource ('a multi-view projection group of `body`'), and the destination ('to a drawing page'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_section_view or add_dimension, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_section_view or render_view. It does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and brief description.

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