draw_path

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral details. 'Draw' implies mutation, but there's no mention of how it interacts with existing content, default behaviors (e.g., create_if_missing), coordinate system, or effects on other cels. The description adds only a terse action with none of the operational context.

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 extremely brief (one sentence) but under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Conciseness is acceptable, but the content is so sparse that it doesn't earn its place—it could be replaced by the tool's name alone.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema or annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent would have no idea how to construct a proper call (e.g., what coordinates are expected, how to specify thickness, what create_if_missing does, or the result of the operation).

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 fails to explain any parameters. The schema provides names and types, but the meaning of 'points', 'frame_index', 'create_if_missing', etc., is not captured anywhere. The description adds no semantic value.

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 clear verb ('draw') and resource ('polyline on a named layer and animation frame'). It distinguishes itself from draw_line (a single line) and draw_polygon (possibly closed shape) implicitly, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 tool vs alternatives like draw_line, draw_polygon, or draw_pixels_at. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., layer/frame existence) or situations where it's preferable.

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