drawing_history

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is already flagged. The description adds the crucial nuance that undo/redo/restore are recorded 'as a new revision' rather than destroying the timeline, and that output is compact metadata unless source/preview is requested -- context an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, preconditions second, return behavior last. Dense but every clause carries information, so nothing feels wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers the critical path but leaves several parameters and the commits-vs-backups distinction unexplained. It is adequate for a knowledgeable caller but not self-sufficient.

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 11%, so the description carries heavy lifting. It usefully explains the roles of expectedRevision, commitId, and source/preview, but leaves view (commits vs backups), limit, cursor, and includeSource completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource (drawing history) and enumerates the actual verbs -- list, undo, redo, restore -- plus the fact that changes are written as a new revision. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_drawing or update_drawing, which don't touch the revision timeline. It falls short of 5 only because the phrasing is compressed and assumes the reader already knows what a 'bounded local history' is.

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?

It gives real prerequisites -- mutations require expectedRevision and restore needs commitId -- so the agent knows what each action demands. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., reading current state via get_drawing) or when-not to use it, leaving the routing implicit in the action enum.

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