Draw on the board

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It usefully adds that content is drawn in a sketchy style and attributed to the interviewer, and that layout is automatic, but it does not describe mutation side effects, validation, or return behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action and usage warning, then moves into necessary component-kind enumeration and layout/reference details. The long kind list earns its place because the schema has no enums, though the paragraph is dense.

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 four-array mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain notes and zones structures in enough detail, does not clarify return behavior or validation, and does not distinguish this tool from annotate/highlight.

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%, so the description must carry meaning for four nested array parameters. It does a good job listing component kinds and explaining that connections reference components by ref/label/id, and that positions are optional, but it barely explains notes fields, zone containment, or connection options like dashed and bidirectional.

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 action and resource: adding components, connections, sticky notes, and zones to the board. It distinguishes the output style as sketchy and interviewer-authored, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like annotate or highlight.

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 gives one clear usage rule: use sparingly because the candidate should drive. However, it does not explain when to use draw_on_board versus annotate, highlight, or clear_annotations, nor does it provide explicit when-not guidance.

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