draw_polygon

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a closed polyline, but does not disclose that repeated calls will create separate polygons or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 no redundant or filler content. It states exactly what the tool does and nothing more.

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 simple drawing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It correctly identifies the output as a closed polyline; the main gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling drawing tools.

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 86%, so the input schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 and resource: 'Draw a regular polygon as a closed polyline.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling drawing tools such as draw_circle, draw_rectangle, draw_line, and draw_polyline.

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 purpose implies when to use it — when a regular polygon is needed — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as draw_polyline for arbitrary polylines.

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