save_drawing_annotations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that labels are lost in SVG exports and that this tool creates a sidecar file with a specific naming convention. It doesn't mention overwriting behavior or permissions, but covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 well organized with a summary and numbered workflow list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly verbose in repeating the workflow, each sentence adds value and the structure aids understanding.

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 single parameter, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, rationale, and integration with sibling tools. It could mention error handling or overwriting, but is mostly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that svg_path is the path to the SVG file and that the sidecar is saved as <svg_path>.dims.json. For a single string parameter, this adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema's title and type.

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 explicitly states that the tool writes a .dims.json sidecar file alongside an SVG with label metadata, providing a specific verb ('write') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like inspect_drawing by focusing on the write operation.

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?

A clear workflow (steps 1-4) is provided, showing when to call the tool relative to exporting SVGs and inspecting. It explains the necessity and order, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives.

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