shape_ellipse_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about the coordinate system, which page/layer the shape lands on, default fill/stroke behavior when fillColor or strokeColor are omitted, or whether the operation is reversible. For a creation/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is arguably over-terse for a 9-parameter creation tool, so it does not fully earn top marks.

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?

With 9 parameters, 5 required, 11% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know coordinate conventions, defaults, or target-document resolution beyond the one schema-documented parameter.

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 11% (only document_id is documented), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains x/y as an anchor or bounding-box origin, nor the fillColor/strokeColor/strokeWeight formats; the ellipse/circle wording only loosely hints that a circle is width == height.

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 ('Create') and resource ('ellipse or circle on a page'), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like shape_rectangle_create and shape_polygon_create by shape type. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the shape qualifier is enough for an agent to distinguish it.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over shape_rectangle_create/shape_polygon_create/shape_create, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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