draw_ellipse_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the file is saved immediately), prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist unless create_if_missing), error handling, or whether drawing is additive or replaces existing content.

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 structured as a docstring with a brief introductory line and a parameter list. It is efficient, with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but misses behavioral context (e.g., what happens on invalid input, how the file is modified). It is partially complete but has notable gaps.

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 fully explains each parameter with clear, concise descriptions (e.g., 'Hex color code', 'Horizontal radius in pixels'). It adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and default values.

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 (ellipse on a layer/frame), distinguishing it from sibling tools like draw_circle and draw_rectangle. The verb and noun are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_ellipse without '_at'). The description implies usage from context, but lacks when-not or comparison to siblings.

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