add_shape

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the shape is 'decorative' and should be placed at a 'lower z' to sit behind visuals. However, with no annotations, missing details about mutability, permissions, or side effects leave gaps. The safety profile is not disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Add', and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys purpose and usage without 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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance on how to use the tool. It covers the 'why' but not the 'how'—required parameters like coordinates and session context are unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional reasoning.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate. It never mentions x/y/width/height, reportSessionId, or pageName, leaving half of the parameters without guidance. The 'rounded rectangle' wording implies cornerRadius but that is already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool adds a 'decorative rounded rectangle panel' and explicitly positions it as a 'panel technique' for visually grouping visuals. This specific verb+resource differentiates it from other add_* tools like add_visual or add_textbox.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use: place behind visuals to group them and add depth. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario (sectioning a report) is well-defined and distinct from other shape/visual tools.

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