create_rectangle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: x/y are ignored inside auto layout unless ignoreAutoLayout is set, and index+layoutSizing must be used instead. It stops short of covering what happens when parentNodeId is omitted, default sizing, or the return value.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action followed by the conditional layout guidance. No filler and every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the layout nuance but omits what happens without a parent (default placement), default dimensions, and return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining the relationship between parentNodeId, x/y, index, layoutSizing, and ignoreAutoLayout in the auto-layout system. It leaves name/width/height implicit (self-explanatory) and adds no enum detail for the layoutSizing params.

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+resource ('Create a rectangle'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_frame, create_vector, or create_text. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains two usage modes (freeform frames vs auto-layout/overlay) and how to insert via parentNodeId, which is real context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_vector or create_frame, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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