Create Line

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description is consistent with a mutating create operation. It adds one behavioral detail beyond the schema—'Returns entity info with handle'—but does not describe other side effects or prerequisites such as requiring an open drawing.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and endpoints and adds a useful return-value note. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 9-parameter create tool this is fairly lean, but the schema and output schema carry the parameter and return details. The description lacks usage context distinguishing line from polyline or arc, yet covers the essential operation and return handle, so it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, with each parameter including z1/z2 defaults and color/layer/linetype semantics documented. The description only restates the core x/y endpoints and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a line') with exact endpoint coordinates, making the tool's function unmistakable. The resource name also differentiates it from the many entity_create_* siblings listed in context.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but an agent is not told to prefer this over entity_create_polyline or entity_create_arc for multi-segment or curved geometry.

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