Create Shape

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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description takes on substantial behavioral disclosure. It explains that shape-specific params are validated by `type`, clarifies pointCount semantics (sides vs points), and explicitly notes the 'no even-parity rule'—useful nuance not present in structured 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler, front-loads the primary action, and uses inline code for parameter names. The second sentence adds critical nuance about shape-specific validation and pointCount semantics without bloat.

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 complex 14-parameter creation tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers the central type-dispatch behavior and key parameter constraints. It does not repeat every parameter (schema covers those) but provides the high-level overview and crucial pointCount clarification needed for correct 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?

The input schema already describes all 14 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping arcData, pointCount, and innerRadius as shape-specific and validated by `type`, and by clarifying pointCount's native-count meaning and the absence of an even-parity rule.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and explicitly enumerates the four shape types ('rectangle, ellipse, polygon, or star') via `type`, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools. It also specifies position/size and optional colors, giving a precise scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by naming the exact shape types it supports. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the type enumeration makes the intended use fairly unambiguous.

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