end_sketch

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's main contribution is clarifying the non-feature-creating outcome, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose what happens to the sketch geometry after closing, nor the behavior on a repeat call despite idempotentHint=false.

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 zero filler, front-loaded on the action and followed by the key qualifier. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the core effect is covered. A note on the state requirement (a sketch must be open) and on post-close geometry would make it complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description does not add misleading or missing argument details.

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 ('Closes the open sketch') and adds a scope detail ('without creating a feature') that distinguishes it from feature-creating exits like extrude or revolve. It never names its natural counterpart start_sketch, so the sibling pairing is only implicit.

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 'without creating a feature' hints at when to pick this over terminating a sketch via a feature operation, but that condition is left for the agent to infer. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, ordering relative to start_sketch, or what happens if no sketch is open.

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