Balloon Drawing

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining the identity semantics of balloon numbers: they are persisted, re-running reassigns nothing, additions append, deletions retire numbers, and renumber=True deliberately discards and invalidates records. It also discloses the return shape, which is valuable since there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than average but organized into purposeful paragraphs: what it does, identity/persistence semantics, ordering, and return value. Nearly every sentence carries information, though some framing like 'This is the print a quality engineer actually works from' is contextual rather than strictly necessary. The important behavioral details are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, what renumbering means, how deleted numbers behave, and exactly what the return object contains. The only minor gap is the precise form of the page argument, but the surrounding drawing context makes the intent sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. renumber is fully explained, including its default behavior and consequences. However, the required 'page' parameter is only indirectly described as 'a drawing page' and 'fit_page has run'; its exact value format or identifier semantics are never clarified. This leaves one of two parameters under-described.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Number every characteristic on a drawing page with an inspection balloon,' and enumerates exactly what gets numbered (dimensions, feature control frames, feature notes). It also distinguishes this from related drawing operations by tying balloons to inspection_plan and fai_report, making the tool's unique role clear among siblings like add_dimension, add_annotation, and add_feature_note.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call it after the dimensions are placed and fit_page has run.' It also explains when renumber=True is appropriate and warns that it invalidates existing inspection records. It does not name alternative tools for the same job, but the ordering constraint and the renumber caution provide clear usage direction.

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