autocad_create_polyline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description's additional content (2-1000 vertices, defaults, closed flag) largely restates structured data, though it does note the operation creates a new entity with a handle, which is mildly useful context about persistence.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. It is slightly padded by restating schema constraints and documenting a return value that the output schema already covers, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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 single-param create tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: vertex list, ordering, closed flag, target layer, and the resulting entity type. Because an output schema exists, the Returns paragraph is redundant rather than necessary, keeping this just short of a 5.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage reads 0%, but the nested properties carry their own descriptions (layer auto-creation, closed behavior, vertex ordering, coordinate examples). The description's Args section mirrors those constraints rather than extending them, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("Draw a 2D polyline through a list of vertices") and clearly distinguishes this from single-segment siblings like autocad_create_line and shape siblings like autocad_create_circle/arc. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the geometry type does the differentiating work.

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?

Usage is implied by "through a list of vertices" – an agent infers this is for multi-segment connected geometry rather than single entities. There is no explicit when/when-not statement and no reference to alternatives such as create_line or create_boundary, so the agent must infer the boundary conditions itself.

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