swdraw_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails it. It does not say whether 'check' is read-only while 'next-part'/'next-assembly' mutate the assembly by reserving numbers, nor does it disclose permissions, idempotency, or side effects — the read/write distinction can only be guessed from action names.

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?

There is zero padding and the action list is front-loaded, but the telegraphic, verbless style ('Part numbers.') costs parseability for a multi-mode tool. It is short without being efficient — key semantics were cut, not compressed.

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 described, but for a tool with three distinct modes, a nested free-form args object at 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description omits argument meaning, side effects, and error behavior. It is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 0% and 'args' is an opaque object with additionalProperties=true, so the description's mapping of args.numbers, args.assembly, args.used and args.discipline to specific actions is real added value. It still never explains what these values mean (e.g. is 'used' a list of already-consumed numbers?), their types, or formats.

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 fragment 'Part numbers.' names the resource but supplies no verb, and the tool's actual function (checking and generating part numbers) must be inferred from the action list. The three action tokens do differentiate it from siblings like swdraw_renumber, but only implicitly.

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?

The action-to-args mapping ('check' (args.numbers), 'next-part' (args.assembly, args.used), etc.) implies which mode to pick, which is genuine routing guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use swdraw_number versus swdraw_renumber or swdraw_register, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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