fusion_create_sketch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs a creation, enforces full constraint, places the shape at the component origin, and returns profile references. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or asynchronous operation behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 entire description is one tightly scoped sentence plus a brief return-value note. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant words or filler.

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 schema covers shape, plane, dimensions, and defaults, while the description covers behavior and return value. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves minor gaps around operation_id semantics and explicit alternatives, but for a simple sketch-creation tool the definition is substantially 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?

The schema already documents key parameter meanings, such as width being rectangle width or circle diameter, and plane/offset defaults. The description adds the 'dimension-driven' and 'component origin' context, which helps interpret width/height/plane. However, top-level parameters document_id and operation_id have no schema descriptions and the description does not compensate for those.

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 and resource: 'Create a dimension-driven rectangle or circle at the component origin'. It also conveys a key behavioral requirement, 'require full constraint', and states the return value, 'Returns profile references'. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like fusion_constrain_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 description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when a basic dimension-driven rectangle or circle is needed at the component origin with full constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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