nx_sketch_rectangle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Add' implies mutation of sketch geometry, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the part/sketch must be open or in edit mode, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens on invalid or degenerate corners.

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 with no filler and the object of the operation is front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of omitting information an agent needs, so brevity is not fully earned.

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 need not be described, but for a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no parameter documentation, the description omits the sketch/part preconditions and corner geometry semantics that determine a correct call.

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 adds nothing: it never explains that corner1/corner2 are two diagonally opposite corners of the rectangle, nor the coordinate system or units, nor where sketch_id comes from. The parameter names alone do most of the work here.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('rectangle') plus the target ('explicit sketch reference'), which distinguishes it from sibling geometry creators like nx_sketch_line, nx_sketch_circle and nx_sketch_arc. It stops short of naming or contrasting with those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 indication of when to choose this over nx_sketch_line/nx_sketch_arc, nor any stated prerequisite such as an active sketch from nx_create_sketch or a sketch_id from nx_list_sketches. 'Explicit sketch reference' hints that a sketch must exist but leaves the workflow to inference.

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