Create a Grease Pencil stroke from a list of points, specifying coordinates, pressure, and strength for each point.
Create a stroke from point list. Each point: {co: [x,y,z], pressure: float, strength: float}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | ||
| layer | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| points | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a creation side effect, but does not disclose whether the stroke replaces or appends to existing strokes, what happens with the optional frame parameter, or failure behavior for invalid object/layer references.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact definition of the point list format. Every sentence earns its place, but the brevity leaves out essential guidance that the other dimensions require.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It covers the point structure but omits identifier semantics, frame behavior, error conditions, and side effects, leaving an agent to guess critical invocation details.
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 description only documents the 'points' parameter structure (co, pressure, strength), which is helpful, but it leaves the required 'object' and 'layer' parameters and the optional 'frame' parameter entirely unexplained. Given 0% schema description coverage, this falls short of compensating for the missing parameter semantics.
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 ('Create a stroke from point list') and gives the point data format. The sibling list contains no other stroke-creation tool, so the purpose is reasonably distinguishable, though it does not explicitly mention 'grease pencil' in prose.
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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like create_grease_pencil or add_gp_layer, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an existing grease pencil object and layer. The intended context is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.