create_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds little beyond the mutation implied by the verb 'Create' and does not explain context requirements, node-tree effects, selection behavior, or possible side effects.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, although the brevity sacrifices clarity and disambiguation; conciseness itself is not the problem.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain parent/selection context, direction/stroke styling implications, or how this tool relates to the many sibling create_* tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, units, or behavior beyond what is already in the 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 concrete action and object: 'Create a line or divider.' However, the disjunctive phrasing is ambiguous, especially since a sibling tool named create_divider exists and is never differentiated. An agent cannot confidently tell whether to choose this tool or create_divider.

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 is given about when to use create_line versus create_divider or other shape-creation tools. The phrase 'or divider' hints at a possible use case, but no selection criteria, alternatives, or exclusions are provided.

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