sketch_polygon

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world creation operation, so safety is covered. The description contributes the geometry interpretation — the diameter refers to the circle the polygon is inscribed in, which matters because the schema field text ('Inscribed circle diameter') is ambiguous. It says nothing about preconditions such as needing an active sketch or where the geometry lands.

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 a concrete example (hexagon: sides=6) and units, no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than pure concision.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the mutation profile. What remains is geometry meaning, which the description supplies, so it is adequately complete for a 5-parameter sketch primitive.

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 coverage is 40%, with sides and circumscribed_diameter_mm documented but center_x_mm, center_y_mm, and rotation_deg carrying no descriptions (only defaults). The description usefully clarifies the diameter's frame of reference, offsetting part of the gap, but it adds nothing about the positional or rotation parameters.

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 (Draws) and resource (regular polygon) plus the geometric construction rule (inscribed in a circle of the given diameter). An agent can distinguish it from sketch_circle or sketch_line by the polygon semantics. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, which keeps it off 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention that it must be called inside an active sketch (start_sketch/end_sketch), no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives for other primitive shapes. The agent must infer the sketching workflow from sibling names alone.

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