create_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'standalone line between two points (not attached to shapes)' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as default styling, layer placement, or whether the line can have more than two points (despite the schema allowing multiple points). This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, default behaviors, or constraints like the number of points. The user would need to inspect the schema extensively to understand the tool.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters. It does not explain the meaning or usage of parameters like label, head_type, tail_type, stroke_color, or stroke_thickness. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action (create) and the resource (standalone line), and distinguishes it from shapes by specifying 'not attached to shapes', which differentiates it from sibling tools like connect_shapes and create_shape.

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?

The description hints at when to use this tool—for lines not attached to shapes—but does not explicitly provide when-not or alternative tools. With siblings like connect_shapes, the user might need more explicit guidance. The context is implied but not fully articulated.

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