nx_sketch_circle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says geometry is added. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, that it requires an existing open sketch, or what coordinate frame/units the center uses. For an unannotated write tool, that is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, immediately conveying verb, resource, and required inputs. Efficient for its size, though the tightness comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter description coverage, three undocumented parameters, and no output schema explanation needed, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent (no prerequisites, units, or mutation semantics).

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 schema gives only names and types. The description clarifies the roles of center and diameter and that sketch_id refers to an explicit sketch, but says nothing about units, coordinate system (sketch-local vs world), or the exclusiveMinimum constraint beyond the schema. It adds marginal meaning over the raw 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?

States a specific verb ('Add') plus resource ('circle') and the defining parameters (center + diameter), and scoping it to an 'explicit sketch reference' makes its role clear against siblings like nx_sketch_line, nx_sketch_rectangle, and nx_sketch_arc. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the geometry it creates is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the other sketch primitives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an open part or active sketch), and no exclusions. The phrase 'explicit sketch reference' hints that a sketch_id is required, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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