draw_polygon

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filled/outlined options but does not state whether drawing overwrites existing pixels, how the layer/frame is affected, whether it creates the layer if missing (implied by create_if_missing but not described), or any error handling. The mutation behavior is under-specified.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the core purpose without fluff.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks essential information about required parameters, coordinate system, return value, and side effects. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without deep schema inspection.

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 should compensate for parameter explanations. It only hints at fill and color via 'filled or outlined', but does not explain points (must be an array of coordinates), filename, layer_name, frame_index, create_if_missing, or color format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Draw'), the resource ('polygon'), and the target ('named layer and animation frame'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like draw_line, draw_rectangle, and draw_circle by explicitly mentioning polygon, which is 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention draw_path, draw_rectangle, or other shape tools, nor does it specify conditions like requiring at least 3 points or handling of layers. The only usage hint is implicit from the word 'polygon'.

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