fusion_sketch_add_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail—coordinates are in the sketch's own mm space—but it does not disclose side effects, whether an existing editable sketch is required, or what is returned on success.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too thin: it leaves parameter semantics, return behavior, and prerequisites unstated. The coordinate-frame note is helpful but does not make the description complete enough for safe invocation.

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, but it only says 'line segment' and 'mm coordinates.' It never explicitly maps x1/y1/x2/y2 to endpoints or explains sketch_id.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a straight line segment to a sketch') and adds coordinate-frame scope ('in the sketch's own mm coordinates'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fusion_sketch_add_circle or fusion_sketch_add_rectangle.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The phrase 'straight line segment' only implies it is the right tool for lines rather than arcs, circles, or rectangles.

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