set_fast_draw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that screen refresh is disabled during a drawing job and re-enabled afterward, even if the job fails. It also notes the switch exists in the Cadwork UI. It does not cover every edge case, but the key side effects are clearly explained.

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 four sentences long and each sentence adds value: the toggle behavior, side-effect details, performance rationale, and UI location. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, with only minor redundancy in the final UI-location note.

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 single-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description provides sufficient behavioral and usage context to invoke the tool correctly. It explains what happens during and after a drawing job and why the toggle is useful. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on alternative tools, which is more a usage-guidelines concern.

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 input schema only provides a boolean named 'an' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that 'an' means the fast-draw feature is enabled ('Ist es an...'), effectively mapping true to on and false to off. This is helpful, though the exact true/false mapping could be more explicit.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Schaltet das Schnellzeichnen ein oder aus' (switches fast drawing on or off). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as execute_cadwork_command.

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 implies when to use the tool: 'Bei langen Zeichenläufen mit vielen Elementen spart das spürbar Zeit' explains the beneficial context. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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