add_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Add' and mentions graphic layers, but does not cover whether a board must be open, whether the operation is undoable, what happens to existing items, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a compact argument list. Every line earns its place, especially given the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it lacks usage guidelines relative to siblings and omits operational prerequisites or side effects. It is adequate but has clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all six parameters with units (mm) and gives layer examples ('F.SilkS', 'Edge.Cuts'), adding useful meaning beyond the bare parameter names. It omits default values, which are present in the schema, but otherwise provides strong parameter context.

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 specific verb and resource ('Add a graphic line segment') and gives examples of target layers (silkscreen, fab, Edge.Cuts), which implicitly distinguishes it from copper tracks and other shape-adding siblings. However, it does not name an alternative sibling or explicitly rule out copper use, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 layer examples imply that this tool is for non-copper graphical layers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendation (e.g., use add_track for copper). Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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