draw_rectangle_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the drawing overwrites existing pixels, how coordinates are interpreted, whether the operation modifies the file in place, or the effect of create_if_missing. Merely saying 'Draw' leaves key side effects and conventions unstated.

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 one tight sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and the key differentiator ('named layer and animation frame') efficiently.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many drawing-related sibling tools, this single-sentence description is under-specified. It omits critical details such as coordinate-system origin, required filename/layer/frame semantics, color defaults, and behavior when layers or frames are missing.

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 for understanding the 10 parameters. It clarifies the meaning of fill ('filled or outlined') and layer/frame targeting, but omits semantics for x, y, width, height, color, filename, and create_if_missing.

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 ('Draw'), a concrete resource ('a filled or outlined rectangle'), and a precise scope ('on a named layer and animation frame'). This distinguishes it from similar drawing siblings like draw_rectangle, draw_pixels_at, and draw_line_at.

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 naming of 'a named layer and animation frame' implies this tool is for drawing when a specific layer/frame must be targeted, rather than the current one. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over draw_rectangle or other drawing tools, nor does it define any exclusions.

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