add_container

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: containers are sized around members plus padding, members move with the container, nesting order matters, the master defaults to the first built-in style, and style_shape is needed for recoloring because theme guards are overridden. These are meaningful behavioral details well beyond a simple 'wrap shapes' statement.

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 information-dense but well organized: purpose and use cases first, then behavioral guarantees, then parameter summaries, then a follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's key semantics easy to scan.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is nearly complete: it covers behavior, return usage, nesting guidance, and follow-up styling. The main gaps are the optional page and padding_in parameters, which are not explicitly described, reducing full contextual completeness for edge cases.

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 explain parameters. It clearly explains label, member_ids, and master, and mentions padding conceptually, but it does not explicitly document the page parameter or the padding_in parameter name/default. This is useful compensation but not complete.

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 and resource: 'Wrap existing shapes in a real Visio container' and gives concrete use contexts (VNets, VPCs, subnets, resource groups, trust zones). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as badge_container or container_members.

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 when-to-use guidance through the listed use cases and explains the correct nesting order ('create inner containers first, then outer ones'). It also directs the agent to style_shape for recoloring afterward, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative container-related tools.

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