create_vector

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 says 'Draw custom vector paths'; it does not clarify that this creates a new vector node, how it interacts with selection or parentId, whether it replaces anything, or what the operation returns. For a creation tool, this leaves important behavior unexplained.

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 clear sentence with no filler, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough. It does not explain where the vector is created, how pathData maps to canvas coordinates, default fill/stroke behavior, or what the agent should expect as a result. The schema covers parameter names but not the operational context.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including pathData command details. The description's 'SVG-like path data' mostly restates the schema's pathData description rather than adding new semantic value, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('custom vector paths') and adds a method ('using SVG-like path data'), which is clear enough to distinguish from sibling shape tools like create_rectangle or create_polygon. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or differentiating from create_svg_node, so it is not a perfect 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 phrase 'custom vector paths' implies this is for arbitrary path drawing rather than standard shapes, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the wording alone.

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