draw_polyline

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral detail by explaining that uniform Z produces a lightweight 2D polyline (with elevation) while varying Z produces a 3D polyline. It omits other operational traits such as whether a missing layer is auto-created and whether the drawing must be saved to persist.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the Z-based rule, then a labeled usage block and a parameter list with an example. Every sentence is informative, though the parameter listing slightly overlaps with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers behavior, usage, and all three parameters. Minor gaps remain around layer-existence handling and persistence requirements, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden and largely does: it documents points (≥2 points in [x,y] or [x,y,z] form), closed (fecha a figura), and layer, plus a concrete example. Only 'layer' lacks semantics about creation behavior or naming 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Desenha uma polilinha por vértices') and adds the meaningful 2D-vs-3D branching rule based on Z uniformity, which distinguishes it from the sibling draw_line. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the geometric distinction is clear enough for selection.

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?

A dedicated 'QUANDO USAR' block gives concrete use cases (contornos, traçados de tubulação, perímetros), so the agent knows the intended context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer draw_line instead).

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