ai_add_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core side effect (draws a regular polygon in the current document) and that fill colors are optional, but it does not mention selection behavior, the need for an open document, or failure handling. This is adequate for a simple creation tool but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by covering a distinct aspect: purpose, geometry parameters, and optional fill colors.

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 7-parameter drawing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description misses important context: it never warns that x/y/radius are necessary for a meaningful call even though the schema lists zero required parameters. It also omits output/failure behavior and any prerequisite like 'an open document must exist.' This is a significant completeness gap.

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 and the description only needs to add marginal value. It usefully groups fr/fg/fb as fill colors and restates the sides default, but does not clarify that x/y/radius are effectively required despite the schema marking no parameters as required.

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 specific verb ('画' / draw), a specific resource ('正多边形' / regular polygon), and scopes it to the current Illustrator document. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like ai_add_rectangle and ai_add_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?

Usage is only implied: use this tool when a polygon needs to be drawn. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over ai_add_rectangle, ai_add_ellipse, or the Photoshop shape tools, and no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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