create_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create a regular polygon' and offers no disclosure about side effects, whether the polygon is selected after creation, where it is placed, whether it returns a node ID, or what happens with parentId. This is under-disclosing for a creation tool.

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 short sentence with zero fluff and the main verb+resource is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized: several crucial usage and behavior details are absent, so brevity comes at the expense of usefulness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context, but it does not explain return behavior, node placement, or when this tool is prefered. The schema covers parameters, but the overall call context is incomplete for an agent deciding among many shape-creation siblings.

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%, and the schema already documents sides with examples and size as diameter, plus fill, name, and parentId. The description adds no paramtric nuance, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Create a regular polygon.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_star, create_rect angle, and create_ellipse by naming a distinct object type. It is not a tautology because 'regular polygon' adds a meaningful qualifier beyond the tool name.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_vector, create_star, or create_rect angle. There are no context clues, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.

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