tldraw_create_highlight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as creating a translucent stroke but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return value. The description is adequate but lacks depth given the absence of 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and input, second provides differentiation. No extraneous information. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and input, but omits what the output is (no output schema) and any post-creation behavior. Given the tool's simplicity and the comprehensive schema, it is marginally adequate but could benefit from mentioning that the shape is added to the document.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond referencing 'array of points', which is already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for parameters beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 creates a highlighter stroke shape from points. It distinguishes from the sibling 'tldraw_create_draw' by noting the translucent highlight appearance, making it easy for an agent to select this tool when a highlight effect is desired.

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 comparative context: 'Similar to draw but with translucent highlight appearance.' This implies usage for highlight effects versus regular draw strokes. While not exhaustive, it gives sufficient guidance for distinguishing from a key sibling.

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