generate_box_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it states that the tool mutates the .glyphs source directly, affects all masters, skips existing drawings, and replaces them only when overwrite=True. It also discloses auto-detected stem behavior when stroke params are 0.

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 efficiently organized: two concise introductory paragraphs establish scope and side effects, followed by a clean Args block. No sentence is wasted, and critical behavioral caveats (skipping existing glyphs, overwrite, all-masters mutation) are front-loaded.

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?

For a mutating generation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description covers the essential operational context: target range, destination source, master scope, overwrite policy, auto-detection logic, and parameter semantics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description documents every one of the 7 parameters with meaningful semantics: glyph_names formats, overwrite behavior, width auto behavior, stroke thicknesses, double gap, and color labels. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 specifies a concrete action—generating Unicode box drawing and block element glyphs—and pinpoints the exact codepoint range U+2500–U+259F. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_glyph or set_glyph_paths without ambiguity.

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 the default behavior and key usage conditions: it processes U+2500–U+259F, skips existing glyphs unless overwrite=True, and operates across all masters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specialized scope makes intended use clear.

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