create_line

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

The description adds meaningful behavior context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it clarifies that vertices can be coordinates or paths of existing points, and that the angle/relative/vector sub-command is not supported. This provides useful behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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 three tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, the second explains the vertex structure, the third states a limitation. No filler or repetition.

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-parameter creation tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the main functionality, vertex format, and limitations. Minor gaps exist around the exact string path syntax and any coordinate system details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and basic 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'vertices' parameter: each vertex is either an [x, y] coordinate or the path of an existing point. It still leaves some ambiguity about the string path format, but adds substantial meaning over the bare schema.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a line, or a polyline'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_point and create_polygon. It also clarifies the vertex count requirement, giving precise scope.

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 clearly states the tool is for creating lines/polylines and explicitly notes that only the vertex-list form is implemented, indicating a when-not use case. However, it does not name alternative tools for the non-implemented sub-command forms, so it stops short of a full 5.

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