create_gp_stroke

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not address side effects, error conditions, coordinate space, or how the tool interacts with existing strokes/layers. It only defines the input format, leaving the agent without information about what happens when the stroke is created.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a compact data format example. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters (3 required), a minimal schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how object/layer are used, the meaning of frame, return values, or failure modes, making it hard for an agent to safely predict the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'points' parameter structure ({co, pressure, strength}), which is valuable, but it leaves 'object', 'layer', and 'frame' entirely undocumented. The partial compensation is useful but incomplete.

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 action ('Create a stroke') and specific input ('from point list'), distinguishing it from sibling GP tools like add_gp_layer or create_grease_pencil. It also provides a concise data format for the points, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing an existing GP object/layer). The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be invoked.

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