draw_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'draw a shape/line on the chart,' offering no information about side effects, whether existing shapes are affected, how coordinates are interpreted, or what the tool returns. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a mutating drawing operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose it states, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. It earns points for efficiency but is somewhat under-specified.

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?

The schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description omits conditional usage details such as point2 being required for trend_line and rectangle, and text being required for text shapes. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could have provided more context, but the schema does compensate for some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents all five parameters, including shape types, point structure, and the style override format. No additional compensation is needed.

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 uses a clear verb ('draw') and resource ('on the chart'), identifying the core action of creating a shape or line. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling drawing tools like draw_list, draw_remove_one, or draw_get_properties, but the verb and resource make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_list, draw_remove_one, or draw_clear. The verb 'draw' implies creation, but there is no explicit context about when this is the right tool or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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