design_add_gesture_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'Add', implying a mutation, but omits whether the gesture line is added to the active layer, whether it can be undone or removed, and whether anything existing is affected. The coordinate normalization note is a useful constraint but not a behavioral trait.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the tool's identity is front-loaded and the coordinate constraint follows immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what gets created and the point coordinate space but leaves the mutation context (target layer, undo semantics, return value) unspecified. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 would be 3; the description earns above baseline by adding the 0–1 normalized coordinate space for points, which the schema does not state. It still says nothing about taper, curveStyle, or flowDirection defaults beyond what the schema already documents, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 ('Add a gesture line') and clarifies the domain content (line of action plus optional Reilly rhythm curves), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like design_add_line or design_add_path. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the 'gesture line' framing is distinctive enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 on when to use this versus design_add_line, design_add_flow_lines, design_add_path, or design_add_curve-adjacent tools. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as needing an open sketch or active layer.

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