nx_sketch_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a line is added, but does not mention coordinate semantics, whether the line is appended to existing sketch geometry, failure conditions, or any side effects on the part or sketch state.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core operation without wasting tokens.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, with no annotations and a terse description, several behavioral and usage details are left to inference, making this only minimally viable for reliable agent invocation.

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 does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning of sketch_id, start, or end, nor does it clarify units or coordinate space. The parameter names and Point2D schema are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic value beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), a concrete object ('a line'), and a clear target ('explicit sketch reference'). It distinguishes the tool from its geometry siblings like nx_sketch_rectangle, nx_sketch_circle, and nx_sketch_arc, and the word 'explicit' signal that it targets a named sketch rather than an implicit active one.

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 description gives almost no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, whether the sketch must already exist, or whether it is meant to be used while a sketch is active. The phrase 'explicit sketch reference' hints at a requirement, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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