convert_entities

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

Annotations declare a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds genuinely new behavior by stating that 'the new sketch entities follow the model when it changes' — associative/reference geometry semantics the agent could not infer from annotations. It stops short of saying what happens if no sketch is open or if both point lists are null.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and target first, then the selection semantics. Slightly dense nesting ('all the edges of each face with a point in face_points') but no wasted sentences.

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, and both optional parameters are explained including units and coordinate frame. The remaining gap is the implicit prerequisite of an active sketch and the all-null case, minor for a two-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: face_points selects faces by containing a point, edge_points selects edges by containing a point, and the coordinates are specified as [x, y, z] in millimetres in model coordinates. It does not clarify the null default or whether both lists may be omitted.

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 ('Projects edges of the model into the open sketch') and names the CAD operation it maps to ('Convert Entities'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It is distinguishable from siblings such as sketch_offset or sketch_line, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 phrase 'into the open sketch' implies the prerequisite that a sketch must already be active (via start_sketch), but this is never stated as a rule or failure condition. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over sketch_offset or manual sketch_line drawing.

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