Draw Shape

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description confirms it creates a new shape layer, adding context that it does not modify existing layers. No further behavioral details (e.g., layer placement, undo impact) are provided.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 complex nested schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and param usage. It could mention that the shape is created on a new shape layer or return nothing, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds high-level grouping ('type and its specific params') but does not elaborate on individual fields beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('Draws') and resources ('vector shape on a new shape layer'), lists all supported shape types, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like ps_create_text or ps_place_image by focusing on vector shapes.

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 states when to use (draw a vector shape) and instructs to supply type and params, but does not explicitly guide when not to use or contrast with alternatives like ps_create_layer for arbitrary layers.

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