tldraw-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' (implying a write operation) but doesn't cover permissions, whether frames are permanent or editable, what happens to existing shapes, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('create a frame') and purpose ('to group shapes together'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a frame is in this context, how grouping works, what the output looks like, or error handling. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (x, y, width, height, name) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying frames group shapes, which doesn't clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'create' and the resource 'frame', specifying its purpose to 'group shapes together'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_shape' or 'create_flowchart' by focusing on frames rather than individual shapes or flowcharts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'connect_shapes' also groups shapes).

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 alternatives like 'create_shape' or 'connect_shapes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing shapes to group) or exclusions (e.g., not for grouping text). Without usage context, the agent must infer from the name and sibling list.

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