create_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds value by mentioning the 1000-item batch limit (though also in schema) and that the full list of shapes is validated server-side, which warns the agent about potential invalid values. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, partial failure semantics, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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, with the core action and batch limit front-loaded in the first sentence. It uses a second sentence to list common shapes and note server-side validation, with no wasted words.

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 batch creation tool, the description and schema together cover the essential input details well. The description adds useful context about shape options and validation. The main missing piece is the return value or response format, especially since there is no output schema, but this is not critical for the create action itself.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It provides concrete examples for the 'shape' parameter (rectangle, circle, etc.) and clarifies that other values are server-validated, which is not evident from the schema alone. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters (x, y, width, height, style, text), which are left to the schema's existing descriptions.

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 the tool creates shapes on a mural, specifically mentioning batch creation and a limit of 1000. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sticky_notes, create_text_boxes, and create_area, which target different widget types.

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 implies this tool is for creating geometric shapes on a mural, and the batch size suggests it's suitable for bulk operations. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'for sticky notes, use create_sticky_notes'), so the usage context is only implied.

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