convert_point

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: it depends on an open sketch, ignores z when converting to model coordinates, and returns both sketch coordinates and distance from the sketch plane. It does not describe error behavior if no sketch is open.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the purpose and immediately clarifies the two directional cases, which are the key details an agent needs.

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?

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description provides everything needed: what is converted, which coordinate system each direction expects, how z is treated, and what is returned. No critical behavioral or parameter information is missing.

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, and it does: to="sketch" expects a model (x, y, z) point, while to="model" expects a sketch (x, y) point and ignores z. This fully maps to the four parameters and their directional semantics.

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 and resource: converting a point between model coordinates and open-sketch coordinates. It also explains the two conversion directions, so the agent can distinguish this from siblings like convert_entities or measure.

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 description implies when each direction applies by explaining to="sketch" and to="model" semantics, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or note any prerequisites beyond the mention of an 'open sketch'. Usage is implied rather than framed as guidance.

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