patch_drawing

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: partial patch semantics (no geometry resend), optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision, and null inheriting document values. It stops short of stating exactly what gets overwritten or how conflicts are reported.

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-loads the core purpose, then the example, then the precondition, then the inheritance caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the inline example is slightly verbose.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with 5 params at 20% coverage and no output schema needs more. The description covers the critical read-then-patch workflow and patch field semantics, but leaves preview/includeSource unexplained and does not describe the failure mode when expectedRevision mismatches.

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%, and the description partially compensates: it shows a patch example, explains seed/sketch null inheritance, and notes label ownership via labelId. However, preview, includeSource, and the concurrency meaning of expectedRevision are not meaningfully explained, leaving gaps.

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 (Patch) and specific resources (labels, node detail, partial styles) by ID, plus the key differentiator 'without resending geometry'. It clearly conveys a partial-update operation, though it never names update_drawing/edit_drawing as the alternative for full edits.

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 a workflow precondition ('Read the selected element first and pass expectedRevision') and null-inheritance semantics, which is useful implied guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over update_drawing or edit_drawing, so the choice among siblings 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.