nx_sketch_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only implies a mutation ('Add'). It does not disclose whether the sketch must be open/editable, coordinate units or frame, failure behavior, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is minimal to the point of under-specification for a 3-parameter mutation tool.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema parameter descriptions, the definition is missing essential calling context. An agent would have to guess at coordinate conventions and sketch-state requirements.

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, but it only loosely ties 'explicit sketch reference' to sketch_id. The start/end Point2D parameters get no explanation of units, coordinate system, or whether coordinates are absolute/relative.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('line') scoped to a sketch reference, which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like nx_sketch_circle or nx_sketch_rectangle. However, 'explicit sketch reference' is slightly vague and it never names the alternatives or clarifies what 'explicit' means.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus nx_sketch_rectangle, nx_sketch_circle, nx_sketch_arc, or when a sketch must already exist/finished. No prerequisites (open part, active sketch, sketch_id source) are stated.

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