add_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure and does add useful traits: shapes vs arrows, computed edges, and same-call id references. It doesn't cover side effects, return value, or error behavior, but it is not misleading.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by compact usage rules. No filler.

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 large element schema, sibling add_raw_elements, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It omits return behavior, handling of other element types (text, diamond, freedraw), and when to prefer add_raw_elements.

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?

Although schema coverage for the elements parameter is 0%, the description clarifies which properties apply to shapes and arrows and explains the id-reference mechanism. It does not explain the many styling/text/freedraw properties, leaving part of the semantics to the schema's inline property descriptions.

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 clear action ('Add elements to the drawing') and immediately explains the compact-spec concept. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling add_raw_elements, but the 'compact specs' phrasing hints at the distinction.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; the only differentiation from add_raw_elements is implied by 'compact specs'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are stated.

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