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 behavioral burden, and it discloses only the geometric outcome. It does not state whether an active drawing is required, what entity or identifier is returned, whether the rectangle can be undone, or whether it is affected by the current layer — all relevant for a mutation tool in a CAD session.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and result with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description should do more for a state-mutating tool. The missing prerequisite (active drawing), return behavior, and layer/undo implications leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%, so the four parameters (x1, y1, x2, y2) rely entirely on the description, which clarifies that they are two opposite corners expressed in drawing units. However, it does not disambiguate which corner is (x1,y1) versus (x2,y2), nor whether ordering matters, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb (draw), a specific output entity type (closed rectangular polyline), the target context (model space), and the input basis (opposite XY corners in drawing units). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like draw_line, draw_polyline, and draw_circle without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Use is implied by the name and the 'opposite XY corners' phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no mention of prerequisites. Notably, siblings such as open_drawing and get_active_drawing suggest a drawing must be active, and the description is silent on that condition.

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