draw_circle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the drawing action and outline/filled option, without revealing whether it overwrites existing pixels, affects the active layer/frame, or has side effects. The outline/filled detail is essentially a restatement of the 'filled' parameter, adding little beyond the schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is inadequate. It does not mention coordinate units, default layer/frame behavior, color formatting, or return values, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only clarifies the outline/filled distinction, but leaves cx, cy, radius, frame, layer, and the color structure unexplained. The added value is minimal and does not fill the gap.

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 tool draws a circle on the canvas and mentions the outline/filled distinction, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_ellipse or fill_area. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a circle is needed), but it does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives like draw_ellipse or fill_area, nor any exclusions or conditions. It lacks clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use context.

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