Apply AutoConstrain to an existing sketch to identify missing constraints and check if geometry becomes fully constrained, adjusting geometry as needed.
Apply Fusion AutoConstrain to an existing sketch and report whether it became fully constrained. Geometry may be adjusted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | ||
| operation_id | Yes | ||
| sketch_token | Yes | ||
| allow_shared_definition_edit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that 'Geometry may be adjusted,' which is a key side-effect, and notes that the tool reports whether the sketch became fully constrained. This goes beyond the bare operation name.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core operation, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 mutating tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this short description leaves significant gaps around parameter values, operation mechanics, and potential failure modes. It covers the core purpose but not enough context for reliable 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain document_id, operation_id, sketch_token, or allow_shared_definition_edit; only the vague notion of an 'existing sketch' is present.
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 names a specific verb ('Apply Fusion AutoConstrain'), a specific resource ('an existing sketch'), and a concrete outcome ('report whether it became fully constrained'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fusion_create_sketch or fusion_create_feature.
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 phrase 'an existing sketch' implies the tool is used on sketches that already exist, which provides some usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.