create_shape

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no mention of required board permissions, no statement of what defaults apply (width/height/font_size null), no note that `content` becomes text inside the shape, and no indication of what the call returns. Only the shape vocabulary and hex color format are conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by two compact factual notes on shape values and color format. The long enumerations occupy space but carry real information; little is wasted, though the shape list could have been compressed.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers only two parameters and omits permissions, defaults, coordinate semantics, and the fill/border color split. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the input-side gaps are substantial.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it defines the `shape` enum values and that `color` is a hex string. It leaves the critically ambiguous `color` vs `fill_color` vs `border_color` distinction unexplained, and says nothing about x/y units, width/height defaults, font_size, text_align, border_*, or parent_frame_id.

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 shape") and enumerates the 22 accepted shape values, which lets an agent tell it apart from the sibling update_shape without opening either schema. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (create_sticky_note, create_text, create_frame) that also produce board objects.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_sticky_note, create_text, create_frame, or the bulk item tools, and no note that board_id/x/y are mandatory with the rest defaulting. The agent is left to infer that x/y are board coordinates and that shapes are positioned objects.

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