draw_paths

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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark it non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses that it returns a job_id (async job model), clarifies that speed is interpolation granularity rather than a speed dial, and reveals that pen-up travel is governed by the external LINEUS_TRAVEL_SPEED setting. These are meaningful behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core call contract (paths format, return value) before the parameter detail, and the nested order explanations are indented and scannable. It runs long on the order tradeoffs, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return value (job_id) and explains the async job model. Combined with full parameter documentation and the external travel-speed caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description carries the full load: it documents the paths structure precisely, gives speed's valid range (1–30) and default (5), and enumerates the three order values with their sequencing semantics. This is exactly the compensation needed for an undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Draw polylines given in canvas millimetres' — and pins the exact input shape ([[u,v],...] with each inner list a pen-down stroke). This clearly separates it from siblings like draw_svg, draw_text, and draw_scene that take different input formats.

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?

It gives concrete guidance for the 'order' parameter, explaining when each mode is appropriate ('human' for natural-looking output, 'fast' for least travel, 'asis' when the caller controls sequencing). It never names or excludes the sibling preview_paths, so there is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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