Create Rectangle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new context by disclosing the non-activating background execution path and that Computer Use is never invoked, but it says nothing about the resulting object's state (selection, layer placement) or failure behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the execution-mode caveat follows. The second sentence is somewhat narrow in focus but does earn its place as non-obvious behavior.

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 mutation tool with nested fill/stroke objects and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits defaults (corner_radius=0), layer targeting behavior, and what is returned or selected after creation. The very rich schema and existing annotations compensate substantially, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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%, including a rich explanation of coordinate_system and the nested fill/stroke color variants, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a rectangle'), which is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the numerous sibling creation tools (create_ellipse, create_line, create_path, create_text_frame), so the agent must rely on the name alone to choose among them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., a document must be open, a target layer must exist), and no mention of alternatives. The only contextual sentence concerns execution mode, not selection between tools.

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