Create lines

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses 'one undo step', that elements go into the active window's database, that a 3D window cannot hold them, and partial-failure semantics ('one failing item does not stop the others'). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, then per-item fields, then placement scope, then the alternative, then return semantics. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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 batch-creation tool with no output schema, it fully describes the return shape ([{guid, type} | {error}] in input order), partial failure behavior, and follow-up tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: units (meters for points, mm for lineWeight), that unspecified settings inherit from the Line tool defaults, and the enumerated optional fields. It stops short of explaining the pen/lineType resolution rules beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draws straight 2D lines') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_polylines for connected segments. An agent can tell it apart from create_arcs/create_polylines/create_walls without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use create_polylines for connected segments, modify_elements with the same field names to change, get_element_details to read back. Also clarifies placement context (active window, floor plan vs section, 3D window cannot hold 2D elements).

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