create_ellipse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action; it doesn't reveal whether the new node lands in the current selection/board, whether it becomes selected, what happens without a parentId, or any document-state effects beyond the name default already in the schema.

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?

A single five-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification; the lacking content is already penalized in other dimensions.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It doesn't explain placement context, required vs optional parameters, defaults, or return behavior, forcing an agent to open the schema and still guess at document-level 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 100% with all six parameters documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters, relying entirely on terse schema descriptions like 'Width' and 'Parent node ID', which is adequate but minimal.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (circle or oval) that maps directly to the tool name and distinguishes it from obvious siblings like create_rectangle or create_star. However, it doesn't address overlap with generic creators like create_vector or create_svg_node, which could also produce ellipses.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. With dozens of create_* siblings, an agent receives no hint about when create_ellipse is appropriate versus create_vector, create_icon, or create_svg_node, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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