add_segment

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states what the tool does without any behavioral details (e.g., whether it is destructive, how it interacts with undo, if a board must be open, etc.).

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 very concise (single sentence) but lacks crucial information that could be added without making it verbose. It is appropriately front-loaded but too sparse.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Missing details like layer system, coordinate origin, and the effect of width on a line.

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 does not explain any parameters; the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). Parameter names (x1_mm, y1_mm, etc.) give some clue, but units and semantics (e.g., coordinate system, meaning of width) are unclear.

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 explicitly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('straight graphic segment (line)') and distinguishes from siblings like add_arc, add_circle, etc., which add different shape types.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as add_track (electrical vs graphic) or other drawing tools. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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