drop_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the operation runs in a single undo scope, and it returns a shape_id per item in order. This adds meaningful execution context, though it omits possible failure modes or prerequisites like an open document.

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 exactly two sentences, with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by high-value execution details. Every sentence 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 description covers the essential context: batch behavior, undo scope, and return shape. Given the schema's rich self-descriptions, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around the optional 'page' parameter and error behavior, but these are not critical given schema coverage.

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%, meaning the description mentions none of the parameters. The description does not compensate for this gap; it says nothing about the shapes array, page parameter, or DropSpec fields. Although the schema itself is well-documented, the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Drop'), a resource ('masters'), and the batch nature ('many in one call'), which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'drop_shape'. It also adds a usage preference ('preferred when building a diagram'), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 'preferred when building a diagram' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the full 5.

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