add_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the tool adds a shape and returns an id; it does not explain mutation side effects, undo behavior, live-vs-file operation, permissions, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized for the core purpose, though quite terse for a 12-parameter tool.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema beyond the mention of returning an id, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral disclosure, and parameter semantics needed to call it reliably.

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 58%, leaving several parameters (h, w, text, font_size) without schema descriptions. The description only clarifies the geom enum variants and mentions text, adding minimal meaning beyond the structured schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('a shape with text'), enumerates the allowed geometry types, and says it returns the id. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like add_connector or add_image, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as add_connector, add_table, or add_image. Usage is only implied by the tool name and shape enumeration.

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