draw_line_at

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the algorithm and target but omits important behavioral details such as side effects, coordinate system, error handling, and prerequisites like whether the layer or frame must already exist.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core action and target. The description is appropriately concise for the amount of information it provides.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. Missing context includes coordinate space, behavior when layer/frame is absent, thickness constraints, and whether the operation persists or mutates existing pixels.

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 indirectly touches only layer_name and frame_index. The other eight parameters (coordinates, color, thickness, create_if_missing) receive no explanatory context beyond their schema names.

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 clearly states the operation ('Draw'), the method ('Bresenham line'), and the target ('named layer and animation frame'). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling draw_line tool, so uniqueness must be inferred.

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?

The 'named layer and animation frame' phrasing implies this tool is for drawing on a specific layer/frame rather than the current one, giving some usage context. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of alternatives like draw_line.

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