forma

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: defaults ('relleno tarjeta con borde; líneas en el color de acento'), the 'ninguno' sentinel for relleno/borde, opacity range 0–100, and that text is drawn centered over the figure. It stays silent on permissions, z-ordering, return value, and what happens with invalid coordinates or a missing document.

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?

One dense paragraph, but every clause carries information an agent needs for a 21-parameter tool: the shape list comes first, then geometry, then styling, then defaults. Nothing is redundant with the schema and nothing is padding.

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 21-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers shape semantics and styling defaults but omits the radius parameter, how estilo_texto interacts with plain texto, whether the created object can be referenced later, and whether the presentation must already be open. Adequate but with clear holes.

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 29% across 21 parameters, but the description compensates well: it maps coordinate groups to shape families (x/y/ancho/alto vs x1/y1/x2/y2), explains enum-dependent meanings (lados = polygon sides or star points, cola = speech-bubble tail, elipse becomes a circle when ancho = alto), and documents relleno, borde, grosor, opacidad, punteado and texto, all of which lack schema descriptions. Gaps remain for radio and estilo_texto interactions.

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 names the resource (a vector figure using the format's palette) and enumerates every shape type it can draw, so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It has no real verb ('Figura vectorial con…') and never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linea or diapositiva_figura, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, even though siblings such as linea, diapositiva_figura or alinear_objetos overlap heavily. The implicit overlap is not resolved – the description even lists 'linea' and 'flecha' as tipos here while a separate 'linea' tool exists.

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