draw_rectangle

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the rectangle is drawn on the current layer, what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates, or if previous pixels are overwritten. The description is minimal.

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 well-structured docstring with a clear purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary text.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value/confirmation, error conditions, and the tool's effect on the sprite state (e.g., which layer/frame is affected).

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Width of the rectangle in pixels (must be > 0)') and defaults. This adds moderate value beyond the schema's type definitions, but many parameters lack deeper details (e.g., coordinate system origin).

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's action ('Draw a rectangle on the canvas') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_circle or draw_line, which have similar but different shapes.

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 (e.g., draw_rectangle_at, fill_area). There is no mention of when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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