draw_rounded_rect_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a path (not a direct shape), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this adds to the current document/layer, if it's an immediate render or deferred operation, what happens with invalid parameters, or any side effects. For a drawing tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence in Korean that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key feature. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 drawing tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '패스로 그립니다' (draws as a path) means operationally, how the result integrates with the document, what happens with the fill/stroke parameters, or what the tool returns. The agent must infer too much from minimal context.

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 all 10 parameters with their types, constraints, and basic descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the 'radius' parameter can have per-corner variations ('모서리별 다른 반경 가능'), which isn't explicitly stated in the schema. However, this is a single additional insight for one parameter among ten.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('둥근 모서리 사각형을 패스로 그립니다' - draws a rounded rectangle as a path) and resource (rounded rectangle), and mentions a key feature ('모서리별 다른 반경 가능' - different radii per corner possible). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'draw_rect' by specifying rounded corners and path creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other path-drawing siblings like 'draw_path' or 'draw_polygon' beyond the rounded rectangle shape.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'draw_rect' for rectangles, 'draw_path' for custom paths, or other shape-drawing tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage hints provided.

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