sketch_line

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the mm unit convention and the meaning of construction=True, but does not state failure modes (e.g. what happens with no active sketch) or persistence behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and geometry, followed by the one non-obvious flag. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple geometric primitive the description covers the essentials, though it could note the active-sketch precondition and coordinate frame to be fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so all five parameters rely on naming alone, though x1/y1/x2/y2 are self-evident. The description adds value for two of them by specifying mm units and explaining construction's purpose with an example, but offers nothing beyond naming for the coordinate pairs (ordering, coordinate frame).

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?

Names a specific verb (draws) and resource (a line) with scope (in the open sketch) and the defining geometry (between two points in mm). This clearly separates it from siblings like sketch_arc, sketch_spline, or sketch_rectangle.

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?

'In the open sketch' implies the start_sketch prerequisite, and the construction example ('axis of a revolve') hints at when to use the flag. However, it never states exclusions or how to choose between this and other sketch primitives explicitly.

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