draw_circle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile, and the description is consistent with them ('Desenha' implies document mutation). However it adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no mention of persistence, undo, units being inherited from the drawing, or interaction with the active document — so it earns only the baseline credit given annotations are present.

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 tightly packed lines: purpose first, then a labeled 'QUANDO USAR' clause, then labeled parameters with an inline example. No filler, and the highest-value information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description plus annotations together cover purpose, usage, parameters and safety. The only gaps are behavioral (mutation/undo/active-document effects) and the untranslated layer semantics — minor for a simple geometry primitive.

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 carries the full burden and largely does: it defines center as [x, y] or [x, y, z], constrains radius to > 0 in drawing units, identifies layer, and provides a worked call example. Only the meaning of the null/default layer and how coordinates map to the active document are left unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Desenha um círculo') and the geometry siblings it complements (draw_line, draw_polyline) make the distinction obvious without opening a schema. An agent immediately knows this creates a circular entity.

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?

'QUANDO USAR: furos, bocais em planta, marcações' gives concrete use cases (holes, plan-view nozzles, markings) that tell the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. use draw_polyline for arcs/approximations), so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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