draw_closed_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that endpoints are shared to form one closed loop, that rounded corners come from tangent arcs with lines trimmed, and that three-point arcs are immune to sketch axis-direction flips. It does not say what happens on invalid/self-intersecting input or whether an existing sketch is required.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact format table, then two concrete examples. Every line — including the examples — disambiguates a real encoding decision the agent must make; nothing is filler.

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 three-parameter geometry tool with an output schema, the description covers units, the full points encoding, sketch targeting, and the closure guarantee. An agent has everything needed to construct a valid call without consulting other tools.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates thoroughly: it fully specifies the points encoding ([x,y], [x,y,r], {"through":[x,y]}) with worked examples and explains sketch_index semantics ('0 = latest sketch') and mm units. Only 'instance' is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 ('Draw a closed profile of lines AND arcs') and immediately differentiates from the many sibling drawing primitives (draw_line, draw_arc, draw_polygon, draw_rectangle) by emphasizing 'closed' and 'segments share their end points'. An agent can tell at a glance this is the right tool for a sealed loop destined for extrude/revolve.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Inventor sees one closed loop for extrude/revolve') and an explicit prohibition ('Never approximate a curve with many short lines'). It lacks an explicit pointer to when to prefer draw_line/draw_arc or draw_polygon instead, so a small inference remains.

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