swdraw_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: both actions delete content ('delete and re-insert', 'delete copies'), which signals a destructive mutation. It does not state reversibility, permission needs, or what the 'save' flag actually controls, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences, each front-loaded with the action keyword and its effect, with no filler. Slightly dense parenthetical arg lists but still economical.

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 no explanation, and the description usefully supplies the valid action names that the schema omits (no enum on 'action'). However, for a nested arbitrary-args tool the argument semantics remain thin, leaving the agent to guess at 'lines', 'values', and 'save'.

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 0% and 'args' is an untyped nested object, so the schema explains nothing. The description partially compensates by listing the expected arg names per action (lines, pos, values, drawing, save) and clarifying pos is in mm, but it gives no meaning for lines, values, or save.

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 names two concrete actions on a specific resource: 'replace' deletes and re-inserts the numbered NOTES: block, and 'dedupe' deletes unnumbered copies of that block. This is a clear verb+resource statement. It does not, however, distinguish the tool from siblings like swdraw_number, swdraw_renumber, or swdraw_revise, which likely also touch numbering.

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 by the effect of each action: you would pick 'replace' to rebuild the block and 'dedupe' to strip copies that lost numbering. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between this and the numbering siblings.

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