create_arrow

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 does mention the key trait of being 'not snapped to widgets', which is useful, but it omits other behavioral details like whether it creates a new widget, permissions required, or response behavior. The description is not misleading, but leaves room for more transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that clearly state the tool's purpose and the alternative. Every word adds value, with no redundant information.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and nested objects, but the schema is rich (86% coverage), the description sufficiently clarifies the tool's role and differentiates it from connected arrows. It could hint at arrowhead placement or coordinate details, but the schema covers those. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining a baseline of 3 as per the rubric.

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 that the tool draws a freeform arrow, using a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('freeform arrow'). It also explicitly differentiates from connected arrows by noting 'not snapped to widgets' and referencing connect_widgets as the sibling for connected arrows.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for freeform arrows that are not snapped to widgets. It also names the alternative for connected arrows ('use connect_widgets'), making the usage context clear and unambiguous.

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