design_add_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether a new layer is created and auto-selected, where it lands in the stacking order, whether it is undoable, or whether it requires an open document. Only the implicit 'adds a layer' fact is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the shape enumeration is placed where it is most scannable. It is efficient, though slightly under-informative rather than padded.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions open: what identifier or object is returned, whether the new layer becomes active, and how defaults interact. The fully documented schema covers inputs, but output and side effects are unaddressed.

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 all 11 parameters (positions, dimensions, fill/stroke, cornerRadius, sides, points) are already documented with defaults. The description repeats the shape enum values but adds no syntax, interaction rules, or cross-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('shape layer'), and enumerates the supported shape types, which distinguishes it from vector-drawing siblings like design_add_line and design_add_path. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus design_add_line, design_add_path, design_set_polygon, or design_add_solid, all of which plausibly overlap. The agent must infer that 'primitive shape layer' is the selection criterion from the enum list alone.

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