create_star

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 simply says 'Create a star shape' without explaining that it adds a new node to the document, whether it requires a current selection or parent container, what units radii use, or what the result returns. For a creation tool, the verb implies mutation, but key behavioral context is missing.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately concise, though slightly under-specified: it could add a phrase about configurable points or radii without becoming wordy.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant context unstated: how the shape is created, where it appears, how inner radius and points interact, and what the tool returns. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the surrounding creation context is absent.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters including defaults and ratio semantics. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable baseline behavior when the schema is complete.

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 clear action and resource: 'Create a star shape.' This distinguishes it from most siblings (e.g., create_rectangle, create_ellipse, create_arrow) because the shape type is explicit. However, it doesn't elaborate on star-specific traits such as point count or inner radius, so it's clear but somewhat minimal.

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 vs alternatives like create_polygon or create_vector. It doesn't state when a star is the appropriate choice or mention that create_polygon might be better for arbitrary polygons. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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