add_ellipse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately communicates the creation behavior and specifies mm units, but it does not disclose coordinate frame conventions, whether axis endpoints are radii or semi-axes, sketch prerequisites, or side effects beyond adding the ellipse.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: the operation, the geometric definition, and the units.

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 simple creation tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core semantics but leaves gaps: the sketch parameter is unexplained, and the array parameters lack structural detail. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps three parameters to their geometric meaning and states units, but the sketch parameter is not explained and the coordinate arrays are not described in terms of expected elements or dimensionality.

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 tool adds an ellipse and defines the exact construction method (center + major-axis endpoint + minor-axis endpoint). This differentiates it from sibling shape tools like add_circle, add_arc, and add_spline.

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 intended use is implied by the operation name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description does not say, for example, to use this tool when an ellipse is needed rather than a circle or spline.

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