tldraw-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether shapes persist, if there are rate limits, what happens on failure, or what the return value might be. 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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by helpful examples. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, how shapes relate to other tools, error conditions, or system constraints. The agent would need to guess about behavioral aspects despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

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 already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and required fields. The description adds minimal value by listing examples ('rectangle, ellipse, text, note, etc.') that partially overlap with the 'type' and 'geo' parameter enums, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's 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 action ('Create') and resource ('a shape on the canvas') with examples of shape types. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_shapes' or 'update_shape' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_flowchart' or 'create_frame' which might create different canvas elements.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_flowchart' or 'create_frame'. The description implies it's for creating basic shapes, but doesn't specify boundaries or prerequisites. No explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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