draw_rectangle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the draw happens 'in a single undo transaction' (atomic, undoable). However, it omits where the rectangle lands (current layer/frame by default), any auth/permission needs, and what returnPreview triggers.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, and the core action plus the undo-transaction note are front-loaded. Nothing redundant against 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves the layer/frame targeting params and the preview behavior to inference. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 60%, so the schema already documents x, y, width, height, color, and filled. The description's 'outline or filled' maps to the filled flag, but the four undocumented params (layerName, layerIndex, frameNumber, returnPreview) get no added meaning.

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 ('Draws') and resource ('a rectangle... on the canvas'), and the parenthetical 'outline or filled' clarifies the mode. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings draw_line, draw_ellipse, and flood_fill by resource.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. It does not tell an agent when to prefer draw_rectangle over flood_fill or set_pixels for filling an area.

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