add_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about state effects on the board, whether changes are undoable, required document/permission context, or failure conditions for a mutating add operation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. The Args-list format is slightly schema-like but every line adds semantic meaning.

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 no explanation, and parameters are covered. Still, for a mutating 7-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no usage context (which document must be open, relationship to other shape tools) is missing.

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 must compensate, and it does: it documents all seven parameters with units and meaning (x/y min as top-left, max as bottom-right, layer name, outline width in mm, filled solid fill). It omits the schema defaults (F.SilkS, 0.15, false), but the coordinate and width semantics are the key additions.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource ("Add a graphic rectangle"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like add_board_outline_rect, add_polygon, or add_line, leaving the agent to infer that this is a decorative/copper graphic rectangle rather than a board geometry primitive.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus add_board_outline_rect, add_polygon, or add_zone_rect, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an open board/document). The description lists only parameters, so all routing context is left to inference.

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