add_frame

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context by framing the object as a container that can own elements, but it is silent on whether assigned elements move with the frame, whether their coordinates change, or what happens on overlap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious parameter. No filler, though the parenthetical definition of frame could have been spent on behavioral detail instead.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 13 parameters, five of them required geometry, and a containment relationship to explain, the definition is too thin to let an agent call this correctly without guessing about coordinates and child assignment semantics.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only element_ids is explained; x/y/w/h geometry, name, opacity, roughness, and the fillStyle/strokeStyle/strokeColor/backgroundColor styling parameters are left entirely to bare schema constraints, with no meaning added about coordinate origin or units.

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 ("Add a frame") and glosses the concept as a "boundary container," which tells an agent what a frame is versus a generic shape. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, add_rectangle, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage hint is that element_ids can optionally assign existing elements to the frame. There is no guidance on when to choose a frame over add_rectangle, whether the frame must exist before or after its children, or any prerequisites. An agent must infer nearly everything about selection.

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