draw_hatch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the boundary must be closed, that scale is ignored for SOLID, and that color is an ACI value from 1-255, but it omits error behavior, permission/layer implications, and whether the HATCH is immediately visible or requires regeneration.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact per-parameter list. Every line carries useful information, and the size is appropriate for a six-parameter tool.

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 description covers the essential invocation details: boundary requirements, parameter meanings, and optional layer/color. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, though additional failure-mode context would make it fully complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: boundary_handle is defined as a hex handle of a closed boundary with source examples, pattern includes concrete pattern names, scale notes SOLID behavior, angle_deg gives units, and layer/color are marked optional with constraints.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: create a HATCH inside a closed entity by handle. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling drawing primitives such as draw_line, draw_rectangle, and draw_circle.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by tying boundary_handle to entities produced by draw_rectangle, draw_polyline, or draw_circle. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is clear.

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