draw_polygon

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

Without annotations, the description must inform behavior, but it only states the action. It does not disclose what happens if the layer/frame is missing (despite a create_if_missing parameter), how colors or fills are applied, or whether the polygon is added to existing content or replaces it.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings. It fails to earn its place by adding necessary context, thus sacrificing usefulness for brevity.

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 tool complexity (7 parameters, many sibling drawing tools) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits critical information about how to use the parameters, what output to expect, and how it fits into the workflow.

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 explain parameters, but it does not. No details on the 'points' format (array of objects), the 'color' format, or the effect of 'fill' and 'create_if_missing'. The agent must guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 'draw' and the resource 'polygon on a specific layer/frame', providing a clear action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling drawing tools like draw_path or draw_rectangle, lacking specificity about what constitutes a polygon (e.g., closed shape with vertices).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling drawing tools (e.g., draw_path, draw_circle). No context is given for prerequisites or alternatives, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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