line

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden for a mutating build tool. It discloses that the line is one block thick and supports diagonals, but says nothing about writing into the design, overwriting existing blocks, material consumption, or failure cases.

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?

It is only one short sentence with no padding, but for an eight-parameter mutation tool this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The one sentence that exists is front-loaded but does not earn its place as a complete definition.

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, but the tool still has 8 required params, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations. The description leaves out coordinate meaning, the design target, block type semantics, and diagonal behavior limits, which is far short of what this complexity requires.

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% across eight required parameters that only have titles. The description only indirectly gestures at 'two points' (x1/y1/z1, x2/y2/z2) and 'block', and never mentions 'design' or the coordinate convention, so it does little to compensate.

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 says what the output is ('a one-block line between two points, diagonal too') so an agent can infer this draws a line primitive. But it omits the verb and never says it places blocks into a design, which is what distinguishes it from siblings like box, cylinder, or sphere. Purpose is recognizable but vague.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the other geometry siblings (box, cylinder, sphere, pyramid). 'Diagonal too' hints at a capability, not a usage condition, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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