swdraw_renumber

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 mutating pipeline (Save As, notes swap, supersede/folder rename) which reveals real side effects. However, it omits permission requirements, failure behavior, and whether originals are preserved or overwritten, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an unannotated 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then packs the workflow and key list into one dense sentence with no filler. The trailing key dump is hard to scan but every token carries 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 described, and the multi-step workflow is conveyed. But for a complex, unannotated mutation tool, the absence of usage guidance, per-key semantics, and failure/permission behavior leaves it only minimally complete.

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 'args' object with additionalProperties, so the description is the only source of parameter info. It lists twelve keys (drawing, old, new, old_parent, notes_lines, save, supersede, etc.), which is meaningfully more than the schema, but gives no type, format, or semantics for any of them.

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 opening states a specific verb+resource: 'Reference-safe renumber of a part and its drawing,' and the parenthetical enumerates the sub-steps (part Save As, notes swap, drawing Save As, dependency check). This is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with swdraw_number or swdraw_revise, which could be confused with renumbering.

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 description explains what the tool does internally but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives like swdraw_number, swdraw_revise, or swdraw_build_drawing. No prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are given.

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