add_shape

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 only states the basic action and coordinate system, but omits critical information such as whether the tool requires an open Visio document, whether it modifies the current page or the page specified by pageIndex, what happens on failure (e.g., no page exists), and whether it returns any handle or ID to the created shape. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and the key coordinate detail. It is efficient and avoids redundant wording, though it could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, a nested object, and no annotations or output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., an open document), how coordinates relate to the page origin, or what the tool returns or does not return. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema further and may still lack critical context about operational behavior.

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 coverage is 88%, meaning most parameters already have descriptions. The description reinforces the coordinate system (inches from top-left) but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain how style options interact or how width/height defaults are chosen. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value added.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('a shape to a Visio page'). It also provides a key detail—coordinates in inches from the top-left corner—which distinguishes the positioning semantics from other shape tools like move_shape. This is specific and unambiguous, separating it from siblings that modify existing 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for creating shapes, nor does it exclude cases where other tools (e.g., set_shape_text) are more appropriate. The intended context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer when to call add_shape.

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