rig_part_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides none: it does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, whether it mutates the rig, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. 'line_cm and seat_cm' are never explained as inputs or outputs.

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?

It is short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — the single fragment omits the operation and the parameters entirely, so nothing is front-loaded or earned.

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 4-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies none of the missing context: no operation semantics, no parameter meaning, no return expectations. It is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0% for all four required parameters (seated_obj, moment_objs, bone, axis), and the description mentions none of them. It references only 'line_cm' and 'seat_cm', which are not parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun fragment ('A sliding part's path against its axis: line_cm and seat_cm') with no verb stating what the tool actually does — compute, read, or return. It gives domain flavor (sliding part, axis) and two cryptic labels (line_cm, seat_cm) but an agent cannot tell whether this measures, draws, or reports.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many rig_* siblings (rig_pieces, rig_align, rig_fist). Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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