draw_line

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the line is 'native editable' and uses mm coordinates, but it does not explain side effects, return behavior, error conditions, or whether an existing drawing is modified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose and units efficiently.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-liner is incomplete. It leaves the role of drawing_handle, view_number, and style unclear, and gives no indication of how to obtain the required handle or what happens if the view is invalid.

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%, and the description only adds meaning to the coordinate parameters by noting mm units. The required drawing_handle and the optional style/view_number parameters remain entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 states a specific action ('Draw'), a specific resource ('native editable line'), and the context ('drawing/fragment view'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_circle and draw_text.

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 is provided about when to use draw_line versus alternatives such as draw_circle or draw_text, nor about prerequisites like having an active drawing view or valid drawing handle.

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