make_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the sheet size (A4), projection standard (first angle), view set (front/top/right + isometric), SolidWorks-chosen scale, and that dimensions appear once. It is silent on file naming, whether an existing drawing is overwritten, and where output lands, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output formats, then supporting detail, with no filler sentences. Slightly long relative to a one-parameter tool, but every line describes a concrete artifact trait.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover everything; it thoroughly describes the produced drawing but leaves the lone required parameter and file-output side effects unexplained. Adequate overall, with a real gap around the input.

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% and the single required parameter 'path' is documented nowhere. The description never mentions what the path refers to (output file location? part file? format selection?), leaving the agent to guess despite it being the only input.

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 ('Make a 2D drawing of the current part') and enumerates the output formats (PDF or editable .slddrw), which cleanly separates it from siblings like export or screenshot. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Save the part first (save_part): the drawing refers to its file'), which is actionable context an agent would otherwise miss. It stops short of explaining when to prefer this over export/screenshot or when a drawing is unnecessary, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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