drop_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that (x, y) is the shape CENTER, coordinates are in inches, and the origin is bottom-left. It also states the return value, which is helpful for chaining tools. It does not discuss side effects on the existing page, but for a creation/drop tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the critical coordinate convention and return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 core required parameters are covered, but the description omits five optional parameters and does not reference related tools like find_masters or drop_shapes. With no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly in anything beyond the simplest case.

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 explains x and y, but leaves master, stencil, text, width_in, height_in, and page semantically unexplained. An agent can guess some of these from names, but the description adds little beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Drop one master onto the page') with a clear object and target. It is distinct from tools like drop_text or create_document, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling drop_shapes beyond the singular 'one master.'

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to place a single master and obtain a shape_id for later operations. However, it does not state when to prefer drop_shape over drop_shapes, nor does it mention that find_masters is the likely way to discover valid master names.

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