create_construction_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It communicates that a construction point is created at specified coordinates, but it does not disclose whether a document context is required, what coordinate frame is used, whether the operation fails if a point already exists at the location, or what is returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence containing exactly the needed information: action, object, coordinate format, and units. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple creation tool, the description covers the core invocation adequately, but it omits some useful operation context such as the coordinate frame, active document requirements, and behavior when an invalid coordinate is provided. Since there is no output schema, this missing context is costlier than it would otherwise be.

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 schema provides almost no semantic information (0% coverage), but the description adds essential meaning by specifying that coords is an explicit [x, y, z] array expressed in mm. This goes well beyond the bare array type in the input schema. The optional name parameter remains inferable from the schema directly.

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 action (create) and a specific resource (construction point) at explicit [x, y, z] coordinates in mm. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools such as create_construction_plane, create_construction_axis, and delete_construction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active document or sketch context. The description defines what the tool does but not the circumstances under which the agent should select it.

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