balloon_drawing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral detail: balloon numbers are persisted identities, re-running reassigns nothing, added dimensions append rather than renumber, deleted dimensions retire their number, and renumber=True discards numbering and invalidates records. It also states the rendered output format (SVG/PDF export) and the exact return shape.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then layers essential identity semantics, the renumber warning, call timing, and return shape. Every sentence adds value, but the length is on the higher side for two parameters, and a sentence like the quality-engineer framing is contextual rather than strictly operational.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return value structure (count, balloons, assigned, kept, retired, next_balloon) and the mapping of source objects to numbers. With no annotations, it also covers persistence, identity retirement, and renumber invalidation, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains renumber=True semantics and consequences, which is the non-obvious parameter. The page parameter is only implicitly described via 'drawing page' and the fit_page prerequisite, leaving its expected value format unspecified, so it falls just short of full compensation.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (number) and resource (every characteristic on a drawing page) with inspection balloons, and explicitly enumerates what gets ballooned (dimensions, feature control frames, feature notes). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_dimension, add_annotation, and add_feature_note by describing the output and rendering behavior.

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?

It states the prerequisite sequence ('Call it after the dimensions are placed and fit_page has run') and warns about the when-not condition for renumber (invalidates existing inspection records). It also names the downstream consumers (inspection_plan, fai_report) that depend on balloon identity, giving clear context for when this step matters.

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