shape_add

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 discloses supported styling features (fills, strokes, corner radius, opacity), but omits the coordinate/placement model, whether the new shape becomes selected or active, undo behavior, and what the call returns.

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: verb and resource first, then the shape-type enumeration and supported style features. Nothing is wasted.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and style options but says nothing about placement semantics or the returned shape identifier, which matters for subsequent shape_update_style calls. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 90%, so the schema already documents positions, dimensions, colors, stroke, and corner radius. The description merely restates that fills, strokes, corner radius, and opacity are supported, adding no format or default information beyond the schema.

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 (Adds) and resource (geometric shape to the canvas) and enumerates the exact supported shape types, which cleanly separates it from sibling inserters like text_add, image_add, svg_add, and sticker_add.

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 alternatives named, despite several overlapping siblings (svg_add, sticker_add, element_add_stock, image_add). The description only describes capability, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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