fusion_create_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation behavior and the plane specification options in detail. It doesn't mention side effects like making the sketch active, but for a creation tool, the core behavior is well-covered.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then efficiently explains the two parameter modes and a typical use case, achieving high information density.

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?

Given the 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description exhaustively explains the parameters and a concrete use case. It lacks explicit mention of the sketch becoming the active context for subsequent operations, but that is inferable from sibling tools. The description is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining plane values ('XY', 'XZ', 'YZ'), offset_mm meaning, and origin/normal as length-3 lists in mm. It also clarifies the mutually exclusive use of plane vs origin+normal, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 'Create a sketch on a plane' and explains the two modes of specifying the plane. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like fusion_sketch_add_line (which add geometry) by focusing on sketch creation itself.

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 explicitly explains when to use each parameter approach: 'Either pass `plane`... or pass an explicit `origin` + `normal`'. It also provides a practical use case (mesh cross-section alignment), making the intended usage very clear.

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