draw_path

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses that strokes lift the brush between polylines and that canvas_bounds defaults to auto-detecting the Paint/browser canvas, but it omits whether browser mode requires a prior browser_open, what happens if coordinates fall outside bounds, and any preconditions for input focus.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by input format and then the default-detection note. No filler, though the stroke-format sentence is dense and could be split for scanning.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core mechanics and point format are covered. The gap is the undocumented `mode` and `duration` parameters, which matter for choosing desktop versus browser targeting.

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 two accepted forms of the required `points` argument and the default behavior of `canvas_bounds`, but leaves `mode` (desktop vs browser) and `duration` (drawing speed) completely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Draw on a canvas by dragging the left mouse button') and clarifies the input shape. It implicitly contrasts with draw_shape by describing freeform polylines, but never names that sibling, so differentiation stays inferential.

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 only implied by the mechanism description; there is no explicit 'use this instead of draw_shape/mouse_drag' guidance or prerequisites. An agent must infer when freeform paths beat shape primitives.

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