create_structural_element

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds context about the tool's limitation (only add-to-existing-line form) and a prerequisite (create the line first), but does not elaborate on specific side effects or what is destroyed. This goes slightly beyond annotations but not comprehensively.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a critical limitation and instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description gives the core purpose and usage constraint, with annotations covering safety profile and an output schema present. However, the absence of parameter explanations (especially 'kind') leaves gaps in understanding a 2-parameter tool. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'existing lines' which hints that 'paths' refers to line paths, but it does not explain the 'kind' enum values or clarify the format of 'paths'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a structural element feature to one or more existing lines.' It distinguishes itself from sibling create_* tools by targeting structural elements on existing lines, and explicitly notes that creating new lines inline is not supported, differentiating from create_line.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: only the add-to-existing-line form is implemented, and 'Create the line first with create_line.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after lines exist) and when not to (for inline line creation), and points to the correct alternative tool.

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