Add schematic rectangle

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

The description adds 'cosmetic only' and reveals top-left corner and fillColor behavior. Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, which the description supports with the confirmWrite parameter. No contradictions or missing critical side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver purpose, use case, and key parameter hints. Front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous 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?

With 12 parameters and a schema output, the description covers the essential behavior for a drawing tool. It could mention that the rectangle is drawn on the current schematic sheet, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the 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 coverage is 42% (5/12 parameters described). The description adds meaning for x, y (top-left corner) and fillColor ('none' for unfilled) but does not explain other parameters like color, lineType, or rotation. It partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 action ('draw a rectangle'), the target resource ('schematic sheet'), and the purpose ('section dividers/grouping boxes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying cosmetic use and pairing with add_text for titles.

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 gives clear context for use (organizing schematic into functional blocks) and hints at pairing with add_text. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the cosmetic-only note helps differentiate from functional drawing tools like add_wire.

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