draw_wire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: orthogonality, inch-based coordinates, consecutive pair segment construction, and that shape ids are returned. It does not cover edge cases or permissions, but for a drawing operation it provides solid context.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the action, the construction rule, and the output. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, input format, and return value. The only notable gap is the unexplored 'weight' parameter and a slight ambiguity about how orthogonality is enforced, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'points' parameter as a list of [x, y] coordinates in inches, which is the essential required parameter. However, the optional 'weight' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its meaning entirely to the schema's name.

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 clearly states the tool draws an orthogonal polyline through a list of [x, y] points, defines how segments are formed, and notes the return value (shape ids). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_junction or set_line_weight.

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 description implies usage for drawing polyline wires, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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