Create a drawing

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the version requirement, which is a key constraint, but does not describe side effects (e.g., creating a new element), permission needs, or return values. For a mutation tool with no other safety hints, this is a partial gap.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the critical usage instruction. No fluff, fully front-loaded. Every word 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite but omits what the tool returns (e.g., the new drawing element id) and any post-creation steps. An agent would need additional context to know how to use the result. Given the tool's complexity and minimal annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that src_version must come from onshape_create_version, which is a dependency not evident from the schema alone. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, earning a 4.

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 ('Create a drawing') and the resource types (part, Part Studio or assembly). It distinguishes this tool from sibling creation tools like onshape_create_document or onshape_create_part_studio by its specific resource focus. The additional note about version reference adds specificity without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call onshape_create_version first and pass its id as src_version. This provides a clear prerequisite and a direct call sequence, leaving no room for misinterpretation. It also implicitly states when to use this tool: whenever a drawing is needed from a versioned source.

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