apply_drawing_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral details. It only states the action without disclosing effects like file modification, overwrite behavior (though schema has overwriteExisting), or error conditions. Critical for a tool that modifies files.

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?

Description is extremely concise at one sentence, conveying the core purpose immediately. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and a nested object, slightly more detail could improve usability without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (7 params, nested templateData, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the full workflow, result, or conditions such as file existence or property merging, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about how parameters interact (e.g., templateData vs templateFile), meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Apply' and resource 'template settings' to 'target drawing file', making the primary action understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_apply_template' or 'extract_drawing_template', lacking specificity about what constitutes 'template settings'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Prerequisites such as needing a template from 'extract_drawing_template' are not mentioned, nor any context about batch operations or library storage.

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