draw_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a side effect (drawing on design/layers/<slot>.png) and that a reference preview is refreshed, but it does not disclose whether drawing overwrites or overlays pixels, what coordinate system is used, whether color/thickness/scale affect behavior, or if 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no fluff and the action is front-loaded. However, it is under-sized relative to a tool with 11 parameters and several sibling drawing tools, so it is concise at the cost of substance.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and many similar siblings, this description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter meaning, expected coordinate/color formats, when to use it, or what the output schema contains, leaving an agent to guess.

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 explain the 11 parameters, but it only implies slot through the file path. x0/y0/x1/y1, color, scale, thickness, plan_id, and output_dir receive no semantic explanation beyond their titles.

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 names a specific action ('Draw a line') and identifies the target resource as a per-slot PNG in design/layers, with a follow-on preview refresh. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling geometry tools like stroke_rect or fill_ellipse.

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 for when to call this tool instead of the many other drawing tools (fill_rect, stroke_rect, paint_pixels, etc.), nor any context about prerequisites or coordinate assumptions. The only hint is the tool's name and the bare action in the description.

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