create_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by specifying default values for x, y, width, height, layout, and show_title, and by enumerating allowed values for layout and borderStyle, plus a range for borderWidth. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the primary behavior (creation) is clear.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clean, itemized list of arguments. Each argument is on its own line with concise explanations. There is no repetition or filler, making it well-organized and efficient.

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 the tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, defaults, and structured style details. It also clarifies parent_id for nested areas. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. The description leaves no significant gaps for the tool's creation behavior.

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?

The input schema provides only types and titles with zero description coverage, leaving all semantic meaning to the description. The description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of every parameter (e.g., 'mural_id: The mural ID', 'x: Horizontal position in px'), giving defaults, outlining the style object's fields, and noting parent_id's role for nested areas.

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 opens with 'Create an area (swimlane/zone) widget on a mural,' which gives a specific verb, a clear resource, and an explicit widget type. This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_sticky_notes and create_shapes, which target different widget types.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: the tool creates area widgets, and the parameter list supports that. However, there is no direct comparison to alternatives or guidance on when not to use it, such as 'use create_sticky_notes for notes.' The description relies on the tool name and first sentence to convey its purpose.

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