Create zone

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable undo behavior ('One undoable step'), which is not in the annotations, but omits other traits such as whether the name must be unique, what happens on invalid rects, or whether the zone persists automatically.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and object, then the two creation modes, then the undo behavior. Every phrase carries 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?

For a create tool with nested objects, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should clarify required/optional structure and any effects beyond undo. It leaves parameter semantics, validation behavior, and result shape unexplained.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies the semantic mode of rect and around but does not explain units, coordinate meaning, padding semantics, or the optionality/relationship between name, color, and the two geometry inputs. Baseline is lowered for low coverage, but the description adds only partial meaning.

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 ('Create a zone') with two distinct modes (explicit rect or around nodes with padding). Distinguishes itself from siblings like update_zone and delete_zones by naming both creation paths, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

Implies usage by describing the two input modes, which lets an agent infer when to use rect vs around. But it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., when to prefer zones vs node grouping).

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