da_draw_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the button is held, modifiers are held for the duration, and strict modifier pairing is enforced even on errors. It does not describe return values, coordinate system, or other side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by examples and behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear overview but misses key details like the meaning of durationMs, the coordinate system for points, and any return/error behavior. The strict modifier pairing note is helpful, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 adds meaning to three of four parameters: it explains points as the path to trace, modifiers as held keys with an example, and button as the held button. However, durationMs is not mentioned at all, and the structure of points is only minimally described; schema coverage is 0%, so this partial compensation is modest.

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 tool's action: drawing a multi-point path by tracing through points with the mouse while holding a button. It provides specific use cases (freeform shapes, signatures, circles) that distinguish it from simpler mouse tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like da_drag.

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 provides explicit use cases (freeform shapes, signatures, circles as N points) and explains the modifier behavior with an example. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so there's no exclusion criteria.

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