swdraw_revise

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real side effects beyond a bare 'update'—moving dimensions/GTols to model points, shifting views, and an optional 'save' key—which tells the agent the drawing geometry/annotations get mutated. However it omits prerequisites, reversibility/undo behavior, and permission or failure semantics.

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?

A single compact pass that front-loads the purpose and then the affected artifacts and keys. Presence of a colon-delimited key dump is dense but information-bearing; little filler. Could be split for readability but no wasted sentences.

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 needn't be described, and the key list covers the input surface. But for a multi-effect mutation tool with no annotations the description lacks prerequisites, ordering constraints between the listed actions, and error behavior, leaving the agent guessing how to drive it safely.

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 free-form 'args' object, so the description is the only documentation. It lists 13 keys (rev, row, desc, date, drawn, approved, approver_name, approved_date, finish_note, shift_views, notes_pos, move_dims, move_gtols, save), which meaningfully compensates, but gives no format or meaning for any key (e.g. expected date format, what 'SEE NOTE n' expects).

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Apply a revision to a drawing') and enumerates the concrete sub-actions a revision performs (rev row, REV box, approval, SEE NOTE n, view shifts, moving dims/GTols). It is distinctly a revision operation, separable from siblings like swdraw_renumber or swdraw_notes, though the dense jargon blurs the boundary slightly.

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?

It notes the target may be the active drawing or args.drawing, which is minor context, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling (e.g. swdraw_renumber for renumbering vs. revise for revisions). The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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