create_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions creation and styling; it does not address side effects, return values, canvas requirements, or reversibility. The glassmorphism recipe is a style hint rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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 plus a compact recipe block, with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides a structured example.

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 18 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers only the glassmorphism scenario. It lacks information about other styling options, return values, or behavior beyond creation, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 18 parameters with 0% coverage from the description. However, the glassmorphism recipe provides concrete values for 8 parameters (hexColor, fillOpacity, cornerRadius, stroke, strokeOpacity, strokeWidth, backgroundBlur, shadow), which adds semantic meaning for those parameters in context. Other common parameters (x, y, width, height) remain unexplained but are inferable. Partial compensation.

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 'Create a styled rectangle' with a specific verb and object, and adds 'Full glassmorphism support' to distinguish this from shape-creation siblings like create_line or create_ellipse.

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 implies usage for rectangles needing styling, especially glassmorphism, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use create_vector instead) nor provide exclusion criteria. The recipe gives a concrete scenario but no explicit 'use when' statements.

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