new_drawing

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description's added burden is smaller. It contributes one real behavioral fact — the new drawing becomes active — but says nothing about what happens when a drawing is already open or whether unsaved work is affected.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 return values need not be explained, and with one optional param the definition is nearly sufficient. The minor gap is that it omits the template parameter entirely, which an agent only discovers by reading the schema.

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 100% and the single optional parameter is documented there ("Optional .dwt template (AutoCAD) or .dxf (headless)"). The description never mentions the template option at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create a new ... drawing") with two qualifiers that matter: it is empty and it becomes the active drawing. That contrast implicitly separates it from open_drawing, though it never names that sibling, so it lands just short of 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that "new, empty" means start-from-scratch rather than load an existing file, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer open_drawing, and no mention of template prerequisites.

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