Add a line layer between two coordinate points with configurable stroke color and width for generative art designs.
Add a line layer from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | No | Start X (default: 0). | |
| x2 | No | End X (default: 200). | |
| y1 | No | Start Y (default: 0). | |
| y2 | No | End Y (default: 200). | |
| strokeColor | No | Line color (default: '#ffffff'). | |
| strokeWidth | No | Line width (default: 2). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a creation/mutation but does not disclose required context, whether a new layer is created, coordinate space, layer stacking behavior, or what is returned.
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 a single efficient sentence with the core action and coordinates front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps in usage and behavioral context.
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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the active sketch requirement, coordinate system, layer behavior, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving an agent with significant missing context.
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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including defaults for coordinates, strokeColor, and strokeWidth. The description only restates the coordinate endpoints and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('line layer') and specifies the geometric extent from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from many plausible siblings such as design_add_path, design_add_shape, design_add_guide, or design_add_gesture_line.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative drawing tools in the sibling list. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a sketch must be active or which layer the line is added to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.