add_hatch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state non-destructively but is not safely repeatable. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether the hatch is associative to the boundary, what happens on overlapping fills, or whether the boundary entity is consumed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is well-formed but so terse that it leans into under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 6-parameter mutation tool, however, the description omits preconditions and side effects that an agent would want before calling it.

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 67%, with color, layer, pattern, and boundary documented in the schema while angle and scale rely on name/type/default. The description contributes no parameter detail at all, so it neither helps nor misleads — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (fill) and resource (closed boundary with hatch pattern or solid fill), which cleanly separates it from the draw_* primitives and add_text/add_dimension siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the action 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no signal about prerequisites (e.g. that the boundary must already exist) or when a solid fill is preferred over a pattern.

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