Add schematic polygon

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds that the polygon is cosmetic and has no electrical meaning, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects, required permissions, or behavior on invalid inputs.

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 a single, well-structured sentence followed by a clarifying phrase. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and cosmetic nature well. Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, it lacks details on parameter semantics and error conditions, but overall is adequate for a simple shape-drawing tool.

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 low (33%) with only fillColor and confirmWrite described. The tool description mentions '3+ vertices' aligning with points minItems, but does not explain color, lineType, lineWidth, or fillColor beyond schema. More parameter guidance is needed.

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 draws a closed polygon from 3+ vertices on the schematic sheet. It provides specific use cases (decorative shapes, callout arrows, block diagram elements) and distinguishes from electrical tools by noting 'cosmetic only, no electrical meaning'.

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 for decorative non-electrical elements but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. While it differentiates from electrical tools, it doesn't compare with sibling drawing tools like add_circle or add_rectangle.

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