adobe_add_rectangle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — that the shape lands on a new layer — but says nothing about the effect of opacity, whether an existing selection or clipping applies, or what happens if a layer name collides.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the argument-format clarification after the semicolon. No filler or restated title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage the description leaves most parameters and all preconditions unexplained. An agent knows how to place the rectangle but not what name, rgb or opacity do.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most error-prone parameter by defining bounds as x,y,width,height in px/pt. The other five parameters (name, rgb triple, opacity, session_id, application enum) get no explanatory text, so the compensation is only partial.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("add a filled motif or mask on a new layer") and the bounds format, which is enough to separate it from add_text, add_path and add_group. The term "motif or mask" is looser than the tool name's "rectangle", but the intent (a filled rectangular shape) is still recoverable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as adobe_add_path for outlines or adobe_apply_mask for masking existing layers, and no prerequisites (open document, session) are mentioned. Usage has to be inferred from the verb alone.

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