tldraw_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema, such as 'fixed square size' and 'colored background', which are behavioral traits. It does not cover all possible behaviors (e.g., post-creation editing), but it provides meaningful insight into the shape's constraints.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and key traits. There is no extraneous information, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity and the rich schema (100% coverage), the description is largely complete. It provides a key behavioral insight (fixed square size) not in the schema. However, it could briefly mention that the note can be further edited or that it is a shape, but this is minor. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to cover return values.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'fixed square size', which clarifies that the shape dimensions are not freely adjustable via parameters (the 'size' parameter controls text size, not shape size). This additional semantic context goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource as 'sticky note shape', which clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'tldraw_create_geo' or 'tldraw_create_text' by specifying the shape type, and the additional detail about fixed square size and colored background further clarifies the uniqueness.

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 this tool (to create a sticky note) and implicitly suggests that for other shape types, sibling tools should be used. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or direct alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling list.

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