Add Line

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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds the concrete side effect that a line is drawn and saved in place, so the operation mutates the given file rather than returning a preview. This is useful behavior disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes.

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 simple line-adding tool, the description plus the output schema and sibling list is nearly complete: it identifies the input file kind, the mutation, and the persistence behavior. It only lacks an explicit routing note against sibling adders and readers, which is minor.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the line object and the editable-copy context; it does not mention start/end coordinates or layer behavior. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the parameter documentation load, though the nested schema itself happens to provide useful property descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('draw'), a specific object ('a line'), and a target context ('the editable copy'), and 'save it in place' confirms persistence. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cad_add_circle, cad_add_arc, and cad_add_polyline.

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?

The phrase 'on the editable copy' gives a clear precondition and implies this is a mutation pipeline tool used after an editable copy exists. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or mention the read-only DXF sibling tools.

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