sw_add_drawing_view

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description only adds that the operation is additive ('one more'). With that lower bar, the description still omits what happens on failure (no active drawing, unresolved model_path), whether the view is placed immediately on the sheet, and whether the call can be undone.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the additive nature is stated up front. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter mutation tool, but there is no wasted text.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only midpoint schema coverage, the description does not say what is returned (a view object, a name, a status), what the call requires of document state, or how position and scale are interpreted. Key facts an agent needs to call it correctly are missing.

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 60%: doc, view, and position are documented in the schema, but scale (unit convention? ratio vs. factor?) and model_path (which model file, relative to what?) have no description anywhere. The description contributes nothing about any parameter, so the two undocumented ones remain opaque.

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 specific verb-plus-resource ('add... model view') and scopes it to the active drawing, so an agent knows this creates a drawing view rather than a model feature. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling sw_create_drawing, which is the most likely confusion point for an agent deciding how to start a drawing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sw_create_drawing, nor on prerequisites such as an already-open drawing or an already-loaded model. The phrase 'active drawing' hints at a precondition but never states that you must create a drawing first.

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