project_to_sketch

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutating operation (projection) but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing sketch geometry is modified, whether the projection is associative, or whether it requires specific permissions. It adds some context (the relation to body geometry) but lacks detail on side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentence (plus a short sentence for usage context), front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise and contains no fluff; every word adds value.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the complexity is moderate. The description covers the core purpose and a common use case, but it omits details like whether the projection is associative or how it affects existing geometry. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that likely mutates sketch geometry.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'entity_handles' refer to entities to be projected and 'sketch' is the target sketch, but it does not explain the format of entity_handles (e.g., comma-separated, list) or any constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names, so it barely meets the baseline.

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 ('Project entities... onto a named sketch') and the resource ('sketch'), with an example use case ('cut-extrudes'). It implies the tool operates on existing sketch and entities, distinguishing it from creation tools like 'create_sketch' or 'add_line'. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate within the context.

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 provides a clear context ('Useful for cut-extrudes that reference body geometry') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It lacks explicit exclusions, so while the use case is helpful, it does not guide the agent on when to avoid this tool.

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