create_drawing

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully reinforces that with 'without overwriting' and adds that the engine validates the full schema before writing. It omits what happens on a name collision, whether writes are atomic, or required permissions, so there is added context but meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the non-overwriting constraint, then the schema reference, then the opt-in flags. No filler, though the inline drawfather:// URI is dense and slightly interrupts flow.

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?

Given nested arbitrary `drawing` content and no output schema, the description covers where to find the exact schema and the opt-in params, but says nothing about the return value or post-write behavior, and doesn't situate the tool relative to compose/edit/import siblings. Adequate but incomplete for a create primitive.

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 25% (only `name` is documented), so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'includeSource and preview are opt-in' conveys the semantics and defaults of two otherwise-undocumented params, and 'Metadata is compact' hints at the `drawing` payload. The arbitrary `drawing` object body remains opaque.

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 (save/create) and resource (native source/drawing) with the crucial constraint 'without overwriting', which cleanly separates it from the mutation siblings update_drawing, patch_drawing and edit_drawing. It stops just short of naming those alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives some routing guidance by pointing to get_format (and a schema URI) for exact native fields, and flags includeSource/preview as opt-in. However, it never says when to choose create_drawing over compose_drawing or import_drawing, so the create-vs-compose decision is left to inference.

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