brush_draw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a canvas mutation but never says whether strokes are undoable (history_undo exists), whether the eraser style deletes existing pixels, or in what order points are rendered. The default size of 14 and the destructive potential of the 'eraser' mode are undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then the modifiers. Efficient, though slightly run-on with the whitespace-glitched style list.

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 5-parameter, zero-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It omits destructive/undo semantics, coordinate space, and the eraser's effect on existing content—exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a canvas-altering tool.

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 80%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description does add value by listing the four valid brushStyle values, whose enum lacks an inline description, but it adds no coordinate-format or opacity semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Executes freehand brush drawing on the canvas') and enumerates the brush styles, color, size, and path. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like shape_add or text_add, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as shape_add, sticker_add, or image_add for putting marks on the canvas. The agent must infer that this is the freehand option from the name alone.

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