draw_ellipse

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description does not need to restate those. Beyond that it adds nothing: it does not say the entity is added to the current/selected layer, nor anything about repeated calls creating duplicates despite idempotentHint=false.

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 efficient, though for a six-parameter drawing primitive it errs on the side of being too terse to earn real informational value.

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 not be explained, and the fully-covered schema means parameters are self-documenting. Still, a mutation tool that creates drawing entities gives no sense of what is created, where it lands, or how it relates to sibling primitives, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents center, major_axis, ratio, color, layer, and linetype. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g. angle convention for major_axis or ACI semantics), so the baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource ('Draw a full ellipse'), and the word 'full' distinguishes it from partial-arc siblings like draw_arc. However, it does nothing to differentiate from draw_circle or draw_polygon, which a drawing agent must also weigh when choosing a primitive.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The name implies its own usage, but nothing tells the agent when an ellipse is preferable to draw_circle, draw_arc, or draw_polyline, nor any preconditions.

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