add_sketch_dimension

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

Annotations already cover mutation, idempotency, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the dimension is 'driving', value is in mm or degrees for angles, and text placement defaults next to the entity. It does not discuss failure cases such as over-constraining the sketch.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then structured by coordinate groups. Every sentence contributes semantic detail without waste.

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 7-parameter CAD mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description supplies the essential coordinate semantics, units, and default behavior. It is nearly complete, though it omits edge cases like conflicting constraints or what happens if no sketch is open.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains x,y as a point on the entity, x2,y2 as an optional second entity for distance/angle dimensions, value units, and text_x,text_y as optional text placement with a default. This compensates well for the bare schema titles.

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 and resource: adds a driving dimension to the open sketch. It also explains the value unit. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling set_dimension or add_sketch_relation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Clear context is given: the sketch must be open, and one-entity versus two-entity modes are described. It does not say when to use this tool instead of set_dimension or add_sketch_relation, so no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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