tv_drawing_add_rectangle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'Experimental' and 'Best-effort', which hint at instability but don't specify side effects (e.g., overwriting existing drawings) or the meaning of 'best-effort'. Since annotations cover the safety profile, some credit is given for the added caveats.

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 extremely concise with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the caveats 'Experimental' and 'Best-effort' which earn their place. Zero waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description doesn't mention success/failure behavior, return values, or effects on existing drawings. The experimental label adds caution but doesn't provide enough context for an agent to anticipate outcomes reliably.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to because the schema is self-sufficient.

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 ('add') and the target ('rectangle drawing on the chart pane'). This distinguishes it from sibling drawing tools like trendline, horizontal line, and Fibonacci retracement. The 'Experimental' caveat doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus other drawing tools or alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints. The description is purely definitional.

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