draw_polyline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real semantic content: coordinate units (XY drawing units) and the bulge-to-segment mapping rule. However, it omits mutation context an agent needs — where the polyline is created, whether an active drawing or layer is required, and error/limit behavior — so disclosure is partial.

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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the geometry semantics immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers geometry semantics but leaves the creation context vague — which drawing receives the polyline, layer assignment, and the interaction with sibling tools like set_entity_layer or get_active_drawing are unaddressed.

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 meaningfully explains two of three parameters: 'points' are XY drawing units and each 'bulges' entry controls the outgoing segment. The 'closed' parameter is never mentioned, leaving a documented gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Draw a 2D lightweight polyline') and even names the distinctive geometric feature (bulge arcs). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling draw_line/draw_rectangle, but the resource name and 'polyline' scope make it separable.

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 choose this over draw_line, draw_rectangle, or apply_drawing_plan, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., an open/active drawing, target layer). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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