draw_room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a closed polyline with name/area label and that width/height are real project units not rescaled. However, it omits side effects like layer handling, rotation behavior, or failure modes.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and output details, the second adds a critical unit clarification. No redundant words.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description lacks context for correct invocation: coordinate system, rotation semantics, layer creation behavior, and whether an active drawing is required. Ten parameters demand more explanation than this brief description provides.

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. It explains width/height but leaves x, y, name, layer, rotation, show_area, text_layer, and create_layer entirely unexplained. Only 2 of 10 parameters receive any semantic clarification.

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 clearly states the verb 'Dibuja' (draws), the resource (room/local outline as a closed polyline), and key details like 'CERRADA' and 'rotulo de nombre y superficie'. This distinguishes it from generic drawing tools like draw_rectangle or draw_line.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like draw_wall or draw_rectangle. It neither states prerequisites (e.g., active drawing) nor typical scenarios. Only the unit constraint is mentioned, which is more about semantics than usage context.

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