swdraw_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at file generation ("workbook", "out" key) but never states what file is written, where, whether existing files are overwritten, or how the drawings/revisions/data inputs interact. For a mutation-style export tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then lists keys compactly. The nested-bracket notation is dense but information-bearing; there is little filler. Only the trailing "numbering_profile" is easy to miss.

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 the keys are documented. However, for a tool with nested objects and no annotations, the description omits where output is written, overwrite semantics, and how the alternate 'data' path relates to the inline keys, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 the schema is an opaque passthrough object (additionalProperties: true), so the description does real work by enumerating keys: out, title, drawings, revisions, data, numbering_profile, plus nested field shapes for drawings and revisions. It adds genuine meaning the schema cannot convey, though it leaves relationships (e.g., drawings vs data precedence) unstated.

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+resource ("Generate the drawing register workbook") and enumerates the three component sheets (Register / Revision History / Numbering), so the output is concrete. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like swdraw_number, swdraw_renumber, or swdraw_export_pdf, which leaves some ambiguity about which tool produces the register.

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?

No when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description names its keys but never explains when an agent should reach for swdraw_register versus swdraw_number or swdraw_renumber, all of which operate on overlapping drawing-numbering concepts.

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