create_sketch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: the operation is undoable. It says nothing about required preconditions, failure modes, or what happens if plane/body_name are omitted, even though defaults exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the target object first and the placement qualifier second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name as a title.

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 not be described. However, for a creation tool with four undocumented parameters and no annotation-level detail on preconditions, the definition leaves real gaps about document/body context and plane string format.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at the 'plane' parameter ('Origin plane or face') and never explains name, doc_name, or body_name, or how the defaults ('XY_Plane', empty strings) resolve. Compensation is well short of what a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 verb and resource ('Create a Sketcher::SketchObject') plus placement scope ('on an Origin plane or face'), which lets an agent distinguish it from edit_sketch. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Placement on a plane or face implies the creation context, and the existence of edit_sketch makes the create-vs-modify split reasonably clear. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (open document, active body), and no routing statement.

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