draw_shape

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: it auto-detects canvas_bounds and centers the shape when coordinates are omitted. However it is silent on prerequisites (focused browser/desktop window), what mode does, and what happens with invalid coordinates.

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 sentences with the shape enumeration up front and the auto-detection fallback following. The long shape list is functional rather than wasteful; no filler 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description omits too much: whether x/y is the shape's top-left or center, what width/height measure, and what duration controls (draw speed?) are all unaddressed. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input semantics gap is significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it explains coordinates being optional, canvas_bounds auto-detection, and centering. It says nothing about width, height, duration, or mode, leaving four of eight parameters meaning-free for the agent.

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 (draw) and resource (shape), and enumerates the exact shapes allowed, which is strong evidence of scope. It never mentions the sibling draw_path or mouse_drag, so an agent must infer which drawing primitive to use from the shape enumeration alone.

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 use ('by dragging the mouse on the sheet') and notes a fallback behavior when coordinates are omitted, but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance against draw_path, mouse_drag, or smart_move. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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