save_drawing_annotations

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool writes a sidecar file (non-destructive write) and explains the file naming convention (<svg_path>.dims.json). It also describes how the sidecar is used by inspect_drawing. This provides good behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 approximately 150 words, well-structured with sections for purpose, why needed, workflow, and args. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the sidecar file, workflow steps, and the relationship with inspect_drawing. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly in the intended context.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that adds value to the schema: it explains that svg_path is the path to the SVG file and that the sidecar is written as <svg_path>.dims.json. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and the naming convention, improving on the schema's minimal definition.

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 writes a .dims.json sidecar file alongside an SVG with label metadata. It explains why this is necessary (build123d renders Text as filled glyph paths, making label strings irrecoverable) and distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_drawing which reads the sidecar.

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 provides a clear workflow: build drawing, export SVG, save annotations, inspect later. It specifies when to call (after completing a drawing and before/after exporting) and prerequisites (annotate() for all dims/leaders). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the workflow implicitly guides usage.

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