Replace Board Outline

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'replace' aligns with that. It adds context that the operation targets the Edge.Cuts layer and lists the shape types, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as whether the existing outline is completely overwritten or if existing graphics on that layer are affected.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation, but it omits critical parameter semantics. While not verbose, the lack of shape-parameter mapping makes it less effective than it could be.

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 of four shape types and a nested params object, plus zero schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain how to specify different shapes or units, and the only behavioral context comes from the destructiveHint annotation. An AI agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly.

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 explain the parameters. It only lists shape types and does not clarify which params apply to each shape (e.g., width/height for rectangle, radius/center for circle, points for polygon, cornerRadius for rounded_rectangle). This leaves an agent without enough information to construct valid arguments.

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 action (replace) on a specific resource (the current Edge.Cuts board outline) and enumerates the four allowed shape types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_board_outline and clear_board_outline.

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 verb 'replace' implies that this tool should be used when an existing outline must be changed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus adding or clearing an outline. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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