draw_rectangle_at

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists parameters and defaults. It does not reveal whether drawing overwrites existing pixels, blends, or has side effects like modifying the file. The 'create_if_missing' parameter hints at behavior, but the outcome when the layer is missing and create_if_missing=false is not explained.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure is easily scannable. No redundancy or fluff.

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 annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file must be open), and how this tool differs from closely related tools like 'draw_rectangle'.

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 schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), so the docstring provides full parameter semantics including types, defaults, and brief explanations (e.g., 'x: The x coordinate of the top-left corner'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Draw a rectangle on a specific layer/frame,' which conveys the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate between this tool and the sibling 'draw_rectangle,' which likely draws on the current layer/frame, so the distinction is implicit but not explicit.

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 like 'draw_rectangle' or 'draw_circle_at.' There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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