create_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies additive, non-destructive creation, but says nothing about whether an item ID is returned for subsequent edits (no output schema exists), permission/auth requirements, or how x/y coordinates are interpreted. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then usage context, then the sibling routing note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Purpose and routing are complete enough for an agent to pick this tool, but with 11 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves positioning, frame scoping, sizing defaults, and post-creation behavior unexplained. Adequate as a selector, thin as a usage guide.

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 only 45% across 11 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Content, shape, and colors get partial schema descriptions while x, y, width, height, border_width, and frame_id are undocumented in both places, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 (creates a geometric shape on the board), enumerates supported shape types, and notes the optional text content. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the mind map tooling by pointing to list_mindmap_nodes and create_mindmap_node, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives positive use contexts (labels, containers, visual nodes in diagrams and flows) and an explicit alternative route with the condition that selects it: native mind map widgets with hierarchy/auto connectors belong to create_mindmap_node. Nothing about when-not-to-use is left to inference.

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