shape_rectangle_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 communicates a write operation via 'Create' but says nothing about permissions, side effects, undoability, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too minimal for a tool with 10 parameters, bordering on under-specification rather than helpful conciseness.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, 10 parameters with 10% schema coverage, and a single-sentence description. Coordinate system, units, color format, page indexing, and document selection are all unspecified, making the definition inadequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 10% (only document_id is described), and the description provides no parameter guidance. With 10 parameters including required x, y, width, height, and pageIndex, nearly all parameter semantics are left undocumented.

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 and resource with scope ('Create a rectangle on a page'), distinguishing it from shape_ellipse_create and shape_polygon_create by resource. It does not explain how it differs from the generic shape_create, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open document. The agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer this over shape_create or shape_ellipse_create.

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