draw_ellipse_at

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes parameters and does not explain what happens during drawing (e.g., overwriting, error conditions, or that create_if_missing controls cel creation). The description lacks key behavioral context.

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 organized as a brief docstring with the main action first, followed by a clear parameter list. It is concise and each sentence adds value, though the parameter list format is somewhat redundant with the 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?

Given 10 parameters with many required and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of inputs but lacks coverage of overall behavior, return values, or error conditions. It is adequate for simple use but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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%, but the description adds basic meaning by explaining each parameter in the docstring, e.g., 'frame_index: Frame index starting at 1' and 'color: Hex color code (default "#000000")'. This adds some value beyond the schema titles, but the explanations are minimal and do not cover constraints or interactions.

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 starts with 'Draw an ellipse on a specific layer/frame,' which clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like draw_circle_at or draw_rectangle_at, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use an ellipse specifically.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_circle_at or draw_rectangle. It merely lists parameters without context on selecting the appropriate tool for different shapes.

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