Add Polyline

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, and the description adds that it writes to and saves the copy, implying a persisted mutation rather than a dry-run. It doesn't detail side effects like layer creation or whether existing geometry is overwritten, but those are represented in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One 12-word sentence front-loads the operation and object. Every phrase ('on the copy', 'save it') adds operational context, so there is no redundancy.

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 and nested input parameters documented, the description doesn't need to restate return values or point formats. The main missing piece is explicit usage guidance among sibling add-tools, and the description provides no failure/precondition notes beyond the 'copy' reference.

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?

Context signals report 0% schema description coverage at the parameter level, so the description carries the burden; 'connected line segments' maps loosely to the `points` array, and 'on the copy' maps to `file_path`, but `closed` and `layer` are left to the nested schema. That is minimal compensation for a parameter surface with structured sub-properties.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Draw') and object ('LWPOLYLINE') with a clarifying parenthetical ('connected line segments'), and it further scopes the action to the copy and persistence ('save it'). This distinguishes it from single-segment tools like cad_add_line, though it doesn't name the sibling. Overall clear.

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 guidance on when to choose cad_add_polyline over cad_add_line/cad_add_circle or when the editable copy must first exist. The phrase 'on the copy' hints at a prerequisite but doesn't state it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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