edit_drawing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: edits are applied atomically, and the response is 'compact metadata by default' (implying includeSource expands it). It still leaves the concurrency contract around expectedRevision and the preview path unexplained.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and object model, then examples, then the discovery pointer. No filler, though the enumerated operation examples are terse enough that they read as fragments rather than specifications.

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 destructive, 5-parameter mutation tool with a required revision token and no output schema, the description covers the edit surface, atomicity, output shape hint and the get_capabilities escape hatch. It is still thin on the concurrency/prerequisite model and on preview/includeSource behavior, which an agent needs before calling it safely.

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% (only 'name' is documented), so the description has to carry the load. It does add value by showing what operation entries look like ('pin api', 'insert_between df-edge-1 with redis') and redirecting to get_capabilities, but expectedRevision (a required optimistic-concurrency token), preview and includeSource remain semantically opaque in both places.

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?

It gives a specific verb ('edit') plus the object model it operates on (nodes, connections, groups, pins, constraints, overlap permissions, patches, reflow) and stresses atomicity, so an agent knows exactly what class of mutation this performs. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like patch_drawing or update_drawing, which is the only reason it misses 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?

The description points the agent at get_capabilities to discover exact operation names and examples, which is useful routing for operation syntax. But it never states when to use edit_drawing instead of patch_drawing or update_drawing, nor any preconditions such as needing the current revision, so usage is implied rather than specified.

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