f360_draw_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load, and it does add real context: the mandatory prerequisite tool, the fixed origin, and the unit system. It does not state whether the rectangle is created as a constrained entity, what happens on failure (e.g., no active sketch), or what the call returns, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its anchor, then the prerequisite, then units, then a worked example. Nothing is padded and nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 two-parameter geometry creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, units, and a worked example. It would be complete with one more clause on what is produced in the sketch or how failures surface, but the essential calling information is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the properties already document X/Y direction and a 0.01 minimum, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by giving a concrete instantiation (50x30 mm maps to width_mm=50, height_mm=30), which removes any ambiguity about which parameter drives which axis and confirms units end-to-end.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Draws a 2-point rectangle") plus the geometric anchor point (0, 0) and the target container (active sketch). This is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings such as f360_draw_circle without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite ordering: "f360_create_sketch must be called first." It also pins the operation to the active sketch, which tells the agent the required context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to use a different drawing primitive instead, so it stops short of the top score.

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