draw_circle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the circle is 'native editable' and that radius uses mm, but it does not state requirements like an existing drawing_handle, coordinate-system behavior, side effects, or error cases.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and scope with no filler. The useful unit detail earns its place at the end.

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 tool with six parameters, four required, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse to give an agent a complete calling context. It does not explain what drawing_handle refers to, how style or view_number behave, or in what units x and y are expressed.

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. It adds meaning for radius (mm) and implicitly places x/y in a drawing view, but it leaves drawing_handle, style, view_number, and x/y units undefined.

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 a specific action ('Draw'), a distinct resource ('native editable circle'), and the context ('in a drawing/fragment view'). It could explicitly contrast with sibling drawing tools like draw_line, but the resource is specific enough to tell the tools apart.

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 phrase 'in a drawing/fragment view' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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