create_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by noting that arrows auto-route to element edges when bound via startElementId/endElementId. However, it does not describe side effects, return values, or error scenarios, and the prerequisite to read the guide is more of a usage guideline than a behavioral trait.

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 compact: two sentences. The first is a direct statement of purpose. The second integrates an important warning and a targeted tip about arrow binding without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 19 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to carry substantial explanatory weight. It covers the arrow-binding case and the design-guide prerequisite, but leaves many parameters unexplained, does not state what the return value is, and offers no guidance on common usage patterns. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 low (37%), with many parameters like x, y, width, and height lacking descriptions. The description adds some meaning by emphasizing startElementId and endElementId for arrows, but it does not explain the majority of parameters. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 clearly states the core action and resource: 'Create a new Excalidraw element.' This specific verb+resource phrasing separates it from sibling tools like update_element, delete_element, and batch_create_elements. It also adds relevant arrow-binding details that further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 an explicit prerequisite: call read_diagram_guide(template="...") before using the tool to get design rules. It also gives guidance for arrows, telling the agent to use startElementId/endElementId to bind to shapes. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with batch_create_elements, the sibling names make the single-element scope clear, so usage context is well implied.

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