compose_drawing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context—metadata is compact unless includeSource/preview are opted into, and expectedRevision is reserved for replacement—but it doesn't explain what a destructive create overwrites or the effect of the revision guard.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the opt-in defaults and revision rule packed efficiently. The trailing 'Example: get_capabilities topic examples' is somewhat cryptic and slightly muddies the ending.

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?

This is a complex tool—five parameters with nested oneOf branches (steps/nodes/connections), no output schema, and low schema coverage—yet the description gives only a few lines. It omits how the templates differ behaviorally and what a successful call returns or does to existing files.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry more burden. It does mention includeSource, preview, and expectedRevision semantics, but 'name' and the large 'design' object are left to the schema, and 'from steps or a graph' only loosely maps to the design oneOf.

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+resource: 'Create process/cycle/architecture from steps or a graph,' naming the three template variants and the two input shapes. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like compose_technical or compose_creative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Provide expectedRevision only for explicit replacement' is a real usage rule, and the pointer to get_capabilities for examples gives the agent a next step. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over compose_technical/compose_creative, so usage is only implied.

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