create_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a rectangle shape but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying an existing file/page), required permissions, or what the response contains. The feature list is more about parameter capabilities than behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the main action and then lists capabilities compactly. No unnecessary words or redundancy; it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 39 parameters, two required parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimal but not insufficient. It identifies the tool's broad purpose and capabilities, but it doesn't mention the required file/page context, what the tool returns, or how to combine options. The schema fills most invocation details, but the description leaves some contextual gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes groups of parameters (colors, gradients, images, etc.) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each property. It serves as a high-level overview rather than adding semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a rectangle shape') and enumerates the styling capabilities, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_circle and create_text. It accurately conveys the tool's function and scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_frame or create_circle. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different creation tool would be more appropriate.

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