Create Line

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context about running in default background mode without activating Illustrator or invoking Computer Use, but omits whether it modifies the active document or what it appends to.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant and the execution-mode note is kept brief.

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 rich schema fully covers all 8 parameters and there is no output schema to explain, so return values need no mention. Still, for a document-mutating creation tool the description leaves out prerequisites and interaction with the target document/layer, leaving modest gaps.

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 100%, with x1/y1/x2/y2, the nested stroke object, and the coordinate_system enum all documented inline. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a line"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the shape siblings create_rectangle and create_ellipse. However it never contrasts itself against create_path, which also draws geometry, so the boundary is not spelled out.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use create_line versus alternatives such as create_path or the other create_* shape tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether a document must be open). The second sentence describes execution mode, not usage context.

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