fully_define_sketch

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: the sketch is mutated by accumulating relations and dimensions drawn from the sketch origin, so the agent knows the geometry becomes dimension-driven. It is silent on failure modes (already fully defined, under-constrained leftovers), how many constraints get added, and whether calling twice duplicates anything — notable given 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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and its effect. The trailing parenthetical naming get_dimensions / set_dimension is slightly awkward inline rather than as a separate clause, but 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?

No parameters and an output schema exists, so the definition needn't cover return values; given that, the sketch-mutation intent and the dimensions-from-origin behavior are the key facts and both are present. The remaining gap is resilience behavior — what the agent should do before calling (is a sketch open?) and whether re-running is safe.

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 and the description correctly describes no argument behavior, implicitly relying on ambient state (the open sketch). Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing because there is no schema surface to explain.

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 the relations and dimensions needed to make the open sketch fully defined — including the precondition that a sketch must be open. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related per-entity siblings add_sketch_dimension and add_sketch_relation, which an agent could easily pick by mistake.

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?

Usage is implied ('that the open sketch needs to be fully defined') and a downstream editing path is named (get_dimensions / set_dimension), which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over add_sketch_dimension/add_sketch_relation, nor what happens if the sketch is already fully defined, so the agent must infer selection and preconditions.

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