make_drawing_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default template (A4 landscape) and that a template is optional, but says nothing about side effects, whether the page is attached to the active document, or what is returned. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

Two short sentences with the core default behavior front-loaded and the parameter note second. Nothing is wasted, though the parameter note is sentence-fragmented rather than integrated.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum explain the name parameter and what the tool returns or how to reference the created page. It covers only the template argument, leaving an agent uncertain about the result and about the required context.

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. It explains the 'template' parameter well (optional, absolute path to a .svg), but the 'name' parameter — its role, whether it must be unique, and how it identifies the page — is undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Create a TechDraw page') and names the default behavior (built-in A4 landscape template). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like sheet_base or add_section_view.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a document be active or open?), and no alternatives named. The only implied usage is that you call it when you want a drawing page, which the name already conveys.

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