graphics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no mutation/destructive characteristics, no permission or licensing needs, no indication that this is a multi-action dispatcher requiring a specific action value. The only hint at behavior is the bracketed action count, which is unexplained metadata.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, and the dangling "[20 actions]" marker is an artifact rather than useful content. There is no front-loaded verb or scope statement to anchor the list.

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?

A 20-action dispatcher with 0% schema coverage, no enums, a nested args object, and no annotations or output schema is essentially un-callable from this description. An agent would have to guess valid action values and the shape of args entirely.

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% and the only guidance is the cryptic "[20 actions]" tag; the required action string is never enumerated, so the agent cannot know which of the 20 values are valid. The nested args object is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving no way to construct a correct call.

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 is a bare list of nouns ("Shapes, bezier paths, shape modifiers, layer styles, HUD frames, counters, detection boxes") with no verb and no statement of what the tool actually does. It gives a topical hint that this is the graphics-primitives area, distinct from siblings like text/audio/masks, but an agent cannot tell what operation it performs. The "[20 actions]" tag implies a dispatcher without saying so.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing help relative to the many siblings (masks, text, effects, vfx3d). An agent gets zero signal on when to pick graphics over an adjacent tool.

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