shape_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic action. It does not state the coordinate space for bounds, how pageIndex/layerIndex default, whether the shape is placed on the current layer, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing or filler. The terseness is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tightly scoped.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested bounds object, and 8 mostly undocumented parameters, a one-line description is inadequate. An agent lacks the coordinate conventions, defaults, and placement behavior needed to call this correctly.

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 only 13% (essentially just document_id), leaving 7 of 8 parameters undocumented. The description only echoes the type enum values and adds no meaning for bounds, pageIndex, layerIndex, fillColor, strokeColor, or strokeWeight, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Create a geometric shape') and enumerates the four supported shape types, which matches the type enum. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related siblings shape_rectangle_create, shape_ellipse_create, shape_polygon_create, and shape_line_create, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when to prefer this generic tool over the specialized ones.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of four type-specific sibling creation tools makes this omission significant, since the description gives no cue about how this generic tool relates to them.

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