create_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation intent and does not disclose where the node is placed, whether it has default visual properties, coordinate-system expectations, or what response to expect. 'Create' implies mutation but little else is transparent.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The parenthetical use-case context is short but useful, making the description appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 input schema covers all parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description alone does not fully communicate behavioral context such as insertion point or side effects. It is adequate for a straightforward creation tool but leaves some gaps around expected behavior and differentiation from sibling creation tools.

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 the input schema already documents all 8 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema is sufficient, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 names the verb and resource clearly: 'Create a rectangle or box element'. It also gives concrete use cases ('cards, buttons, visual dividers'), which helps distinguish it from shape siblings like create_ellipse and create_svg_icon. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_frame, which could overlap semantically with 'box element'.

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 intended usage through examples ('useful for cards, buttons, visual dividers'), but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or sibling routing is provided, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name and sibling context.

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