shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether delete/ungroup are reversible, how existing shapes behave on update, or what the call returns. It only names the mutation verbs.

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?

It is a dense signature dump rather than prose, but it is front-loaded with the domain, lists the actions in order, and wastes no words. For 21 parameters this is an efficient format, though it reads as machine-generated and lacks any sentence-level explanation.

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 a 21-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the dispatch logic but leaves behavior, prerequisites, side effects, and response shape entirely unexplained. Adequate to start a call, incomplete for safe use.

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?

With 62% schema coverage and 21 parameters, the key addition is the conditional mapping of parameters to actions (e.g. points only for insert/update, targets only for group, target only for update/delete). The schema cannot express this action-parameter coupling, so the description meaningfully compensates. It still omits syntax details such as locator formats and unit rules, which the schema partially covers.

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 opening '도형·글상자·묶기' (shapes, text boxes, grouping) states the resource clearly, and the action list (insert/update/delete/group/ungroup) gives an agent an unambiguous verb set. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling domain tools like table or chart, but within its own scope the purpose is precise.

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 per-action parameter signatures imply which action to pick for which goal, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as text or table for placing content. Usage is inferable from the action names rather than stated.

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