draw_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides no information about side effects, whether shapes are overwritten, validation rules, or the response format. This is a critical gap for a mutation 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose. However, it is extremely terse and lacks any supporting details, which slightly reduces the score.

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 the tool has 5 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or how to construct valid point objects. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, as every property in the input schema has a description. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Draw') and the resource ('shape/line on the chart'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_clear or draw_remove_one by identifying this as the drawing operation. However, it does not enumerate the specific shape types, relying on the schema for that detail.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of how this relates to sibling draw tools (e.g., draw_clear, draw_remove_one) or any prerequisites such as having a chart open. The usage is only implicitly understood from the action verb.

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