Shape new document

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

The description discloses that the call 'discards current shape tree,' i.e. destructive loss of in-memory state, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct inconsistency about the tool's safety profile, so it is flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the consequential side effect in a trailing parenthetical. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the destructive side effect. It could say more about the resulting state (empty document ready for shape_add_* calls) or reversibility via shape_undo, but the essentials are present.

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?

The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('start a new empty shape document') with an explicit scope qualifier ('empty'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like shape_add_box, shape_get_tree, and project_new. An agent can identify the action without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the parenthetical warning that the current shape tree is discarded, which signals 'only call this when you want to discard existing shapes.' However, it names no alternative (e.g., project_new vs a new shape document) and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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