add_polygon

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 mentions the creation of a regular polygon with sides, center, and radius but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., active sketch), error conditions, or side effects (e.g., overlapping geometry). The generic input schema 'input_data' leaves critical behavioral details unspecified.

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 concise with three short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core action, making it front-loaded. No unnecessary words or verbose explanations are present.

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 tool adds a sketch entity, essential context is missing: the need for an active sketch, coordinate system for center point, and any constraints or behavior when the polygon is placed. The output schema exists but is not described, and the return value is not mentioned. The description leaves significant gaps for proper tool invocation.

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 input schema has one generic parameter 'input_data' with a vague description. The tool description partially compensates by naming 'number of sides, center point, and circumscribed radius,' but it does not specify the exact structure, types, or key names expected. With schema description coverage effectively very low, the description inadequately defines the parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a regular polygon to the current sketch.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_line or add_circle by specifying polygon creation. The added examples (hexagonal nuts, octagonal features) reinforce the tool's purpose.

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 implies use when a regular polygon is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an active sketch. No exclusions or conditional contexts are given.

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