place_drawing_asset

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the tool creates a reusable block, places it on a specific layer (ALMOND-DRAW::ASSETS), and only accepts files from a controlled manifest. This is fairly transparent, though side effects or conflict handling are omitted.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short paragraphs, each sentence adding distinct value. No filler or redundant 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks important context such as how to obtain asset_ids, the meaning of coordinate system, or the expected output. Given the absence of parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (asset_id, x, y, z, scale, rotation). The agent must infer meanings from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for proper invocation.

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 clearly states the tool places an indexed representation asset as a reusable Rhino block, and distinguishes it from IKEA product blocks by specifying the layer and manifest source, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 hints at usage by contrasting with IKEA blocks and mentioning the manifest constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like place_diagram_asset or place_ikea_furniture, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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