draw_ellipse_at

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, without mentioning side effects like layer creation (create_if_missing), coordinate system, frame indexing (exclusiveMinimum 0 implies 1-based but not stated), color format, or return values.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes essential distinctions ('filled or outlined', 'named layer and animation frame') without verbosity.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine how to specify position, radius, color, or whether the layer/frame may be created, nor what the tool returns or how it behaves on failure.

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 mentions 'filled or outlined' mapping to the fill parameter and 'named layer and animation frame' mapping to layer_name and frame_index, but it leaves filename, center_x, center_y, radius_x, radius_y, color, and create_if_missing unexplained. This is minimal value for 10 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('ellipse'), and notes it is on a named layer and animation frame Sunday. It distinguishes from siblings like draw_rectangle or draw_circle by naming the ellipse shape. However, it doesn't mention the coordinate/position aspect that the 'at' suffix implies, leaving a minor gap in specificity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_circle_at or draw_rectangle_at. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be selected or any exclusions.

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