Draw Rectangle

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait — geometry is placed in the most recent sketch rather than a new one — but omits what happens if no sketch exists, what units width/height use, and whether the rectangle is origin-anchored or centered.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves purpose-critical details unstated rather than wasted.

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 five parameters, low schema coverage, a mutation annotation set, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It leaves unresolved the origin/centering semantics, units, failure behavior with no active sketch, and what the call returns.

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 20%: only origin_z is documented (as ignored), while width, height, origin_x, and origin_y carry no explanation. The description does not compensate by clarifying whether origin is a corner or center point, what units apply, or how width/height are measured — the most consequential ambiguity for a geometry call.

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 (draw a rectangle) and scopes it to the most recent sketch, so an agent can distinguish it from create_sketch or draw_line. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling drawing tools such as create_polygon or draw_circle.

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 phrase 'in the most recent sketch' implies a precondition (an active/existing sketch) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative recommendations, and no statement about what to do when no sketch exists. Usage must be inferred.

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