draw_batch

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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description usefully adds that results (or errors) are returned per operation. However, it never explains what stop_on_error actually does, whether the batch is atomic or partially applied, or what happens on the 500-item cap — facts that matter for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the return contract. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described here. But for a batch mutation with a stop_on_error switch and a 500-item limit, the description leaves key operational questions unanswered, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The operations item schema is richly documented inline, but stop_on_error is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a behavioral switch the agent cannot reason about.

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 and resource ('Create many entities') and the batch framing ('in one call'), which distinguishes it from the single-entity siblings like draw_line or draw_point. It stops short of explicitly naming the batch use case versus the single tools, but the purpose 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no threshold suggesting when batching beats repeated single-tool calls, and no mention of alternatives. The batch nature implies usage, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferred over the individual draw_* tools.

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