cavalry_create_primitive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool creates a shape and accepts optional attributes, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it appends to the current composition, whether it is destructive, or what happens to existing layers). The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes specific examples. It is concise and efficient, though a more structured format (e.g., breaking out parameters or usage notes) could improve readability.

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 creation tool with three parameters, the description covers the main action and examples. However, there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the return value or confirmation of creation, leaving the agent uninformed about what to expect after invocation.

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 parameter roles. The description provides examples of attribute keys and values, which adds marginal value over the schema's example. No additional semantics like constraints or edge cases are provided.

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 tool creates a geometric primitive shape in Cavalry, listing specific types (e.g., ellipse, rectangle) and optional initial attributes. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cavalry_create_layer by specifying 'geometric primitive'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cavalry_create_layer (which may create other layer types). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when it is appropriate to invoke this tool.

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