create_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only states the default unit. It omits mutation side effects, default layer behavior, whether the line is immediately committed, required permissions, and return information.

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 concise sentences with the action and coordinate meaning front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is efficient but perhaps overly terse given the six-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It leaves layer semantics, return behavior, and side effects unexplained.

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. It maps x1,y1,x2,y2 to line endpoints and gives the default unit, but completely omits the optional 'layer' parameter and any other parameter constraints.

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 ('Create') and resource ('line'), and defines the line by its endpoints (x1,y1) to (x2,y2). It clearly distinguishes this from a point or a polyline in practice, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_polyline or create_arc.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The purpose implies usage, but there is no explicit context for choosing create_line over create_polyline or create_arc.

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