set_line_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation by 'set' but does not state whether the change is reversible, whether it applies to all objects on a layer or only selected ones, or whether it overwrites existing styles. It does not mention side effects or required permissions.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and provides the necessary targeting constraint in a parenthetical, keeping it compact.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, since there are no annotations, the description should clarify behavioral aspects such as whether the action affects all objects on a layer, whether it is reversible, and any prerequisites. These are absent, making the description incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by stating that layer and names are mutually exclusive (exactly one must be provided) and clarifies that 'names' refers to objects. It repeats the enum values already in the schema, but the exclusivity constraint is valuable.

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's action: setting line styles (Solid, Dashed, Dotted, Dashdot) on either a layer or objects. The 'exactly one of layer / names' constraint distinguishes the two targeting modes. It is specific and uses a verb-resource structure that separates it from siblings like set_line_width.

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 information is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_properties or set_line_width. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions. The only guidance given is the parameter-level exclusivity, which does not help with tool selection.

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