nx_finish_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet only says the sketch is "deactivated and finished." It does not state whether the sketch geometry is preserved or discarded, whether the sketch can be reopened later, whether it must currently be active, or whether calling it twice is safe — all key traits for a state-changing operation.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity tips into under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is wasted, but very little is delivered.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description omits the state-transition and precondition details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single required sketch_id, and the description adds nothing about whether it is a name, index, or handle — nor how to obtain one (plausibly via nx_list_sketches). The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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?

"Deactivate and finish" gives a verb and "sketch" the resource, but the object is described as an "explicit sketch reference," which is ambiguous jargon for what is presumably a sketch_id. It is not differentiated from neighboring lifecycle tools like nx_create_sketch, nx_list_sketches, or nx_release, so the agent must infer where this fits.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this — e.g., after nx_sketch_line/nx_sketch_rectangle to close out the profile before nx_extrude — and no mention of the alternative lifecycle operations (nx_create_sketch, nx_release). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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