create_sketch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the uniqueness constraint and allowed planes, but it does not explain what happens on duplicate names, whether the tool returns a reference, or any other postconditions/error behavior for a mutating operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place by conveying either the action or a required constraint.

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 two-parameter creation tool, the description is adequate to invoke it with valid values. However, with no output schema and no mention of return behavior or how the created sketch is referenced by subsequent operations, there are clear gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 compensate. It does by enumerating valid plane values ('plane in {xy, xz, yz}') and clarifying the name constraint ('name must be unique'), which adds meaning beyond the bare string type definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new sketch') and the resource ('sketch') plus a location constraint ('principal plane'). It also specifies valid plane values, adding useful scope beyond the name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like create_construction_plane.

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 gives constraints but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or follow-up steps. It does not mention that a sketch must be created before adding lines/rectangles or how it relates to sibling geometry tools.

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