repair_drawing

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-read-only; the description adds real context beyond them - the plan/preview-then-apply protocol, the revision guard, full-vs-compact reporting, and that remaining errors block writes. It stops short of stating what content a repair mutates or what permissions are needed.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the workflow leads and details follow. A few phrases ('independent opt-ins') are terse to the point of being cryptic, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and error-blocking well but leaves much of the parameter surface and the response shape unexplained (only implicitly noting a returned planId). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 10%, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify planId, expectedRevision, detail levels, includeSource, and preview. But it says nothing about checks, repairs, maxPasses, or action, leaving the majority of this 10-parameter tool's semantics undocumented.

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 conveys a clear two-phase purpose: preview a bounded repair, then apply the returned planId. The verb/resource is understandable from context, but it never distinguishes itself from likely neighbors such as check_drawing, preview_drawing, or patch_drawing, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 a concrete workflow (preview first, then apply with the returned planId and identical options/expectedRevision) and a key constraint ('Remaining errors block writes'). However, it never names or excludes alternative sibling tools, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that question is answered only implicitly.

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