add_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool requires an open board, what permissions are needed, whether the operation is undoable, or any other behavioral trait beyond the fact that it creates a polygon.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses a clear Args block. It is concise and every sentence contributes. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured for its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage context, does not mention the default layer or that a board must be open, and offers no behavioral guidance. For a 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations, it is only minimally viable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the points format ('each {"x_mm": .., "y_mm": ..} or [x, y]'), enforces a minimum of 3 points, and clarifies layer, width_mm, and filled. Only minor detail (e.g., layer default) is missing, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a graphic polygon.' This clearly identifies the action and object. However, it does not differentiate from sibling creation tools such as add_rectangle, add_circle, or add_zone, so it falls short of the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It only lists parameters, leaving usage entirely inferred.

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