draw_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses defaults (foreground color fallback, line_width 2.0, active layer fallback, image_index 0) and that it returns a status dict, but it does not state that this mutates the image, whether it is undoable, or what happens if the named layer does not exist.

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 front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact per-parameter list. Every line adds information; nothing is redundant and the structure is easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, key defaults, and the return shape ('status dict'). It could be more complete by noting the coordinate space and undo implications, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, yet the description documents every one of the 8 parameters, including defaults that the schema only encodes as JSON defaults. It falls short of a 5 because the color format (hex vs. name) and the coordinate units for x/y are left unspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Draw a rectangle outline (stroke only) on a layer,' and the '(stroke only)' qualifier distinguishes it from fill_rectangle and fill_ellipse without naming them. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative siblings, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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 rather than stated: 'stroke only' suggests when to prefer this over fill_rectangle, and the layer_name default implies the active-layer case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as an open image or an existing layer.

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