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 restates the creation action and says nothing about insertion location, coordinate origin, units, default fill/opacity, return value, or side effects. This is essentially no behavioral transparency beyond the schema's existence.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler words. 'Create a rectangle shape' is efficient but slightly redundant ('rectangle' and 'shape'). It is concise without being bloated, though it may be too terse to fully support an agent.

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, no output schema, and seven parameters, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not explain what the tool returns, where the rectangle is created, how parentId affects placement, or what defaults apply. The description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 structured schema already documents all seven parameters including required width and height. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a rectangle shape.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and is distinguishable from siblings like create_ellipse, create_polygon, and create_star by the shape type. However, it does not add any details about the rectangle's behavior or context, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_frame, create_vector, or create_svg_node. The only usage signal is the tool's name and purpose, which is implied rather than explained. No exclusions, prerequisites, or preference conditions are provided.

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