draw_rectangle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutation that mutates the drawing. The description adds only that the output entity is a closed polyline; it says nothing about authorization, layer auto-creation side effects, or what is returned beyond what the output schema carries.

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 sentence with the verb, resource, geometry and construction format all front-loaded; no filler or redundant restatement.

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 draw tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers the geometry needed to call it correctly. It leaves only minor gaps around preconditions (an open drawing/current space) and the default layer behavior.

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 color (ACI/name list), layer, linetype and the 2D/3D coordinate format. The description's only added meaning is that the two corner points are opposite corners (order-independent), which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 an axis-aligned rectangle') and adds the construction detail that it is emitted as a closed polyline from two opposite corners. An agent can distinguish it from draw_polyline or draw_polygon by the axis-aligned geometry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'axis-aligned' qualifier signals this tool is for non-rotated rectangles, which is a weak selection cue against draw_polygon/draw_polyline. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite (e.g., requires an open drawing) guidance.

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