Create Shape

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so description carries burden. It discloses validation by type and the no even-parity rule for pointCount, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or behavior with invalid parameters (e.g., missing parentId).

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, front-loaded with the action and shape types, and includes key cross-parameter constraints. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, nested objects, output schema present), the description covers core functionality but misses context like prerequisites (parent node requirements), error handling, or integration with siblings. Lacks guidance on when to prefer this over other creation tools.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining shape-specific parameter validation and clarifying pointCount semantics ('native count — no even-parity rule'). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 shapes (rectangle, ellipse, polygon, star) with specific parameters. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_frame or create_svg by focusing on these shape types.

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 implies usage when creating the listed shape types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_frame, create_svg, or create_component. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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