draw_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses units and sketch targeting, but does not explain whether the sketch must already exist, whether this mutates or creates geometry, what happens on invalid input, or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded and compact: one sentence states the action and units, followed by a clean Args list. There is no unnecessary explanation.

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?

Because there are no annotations and the input schema has low description coverage, the description should do more to explain preconditions and mutation behavior. It adequately covers geometry parameters, but omits sketch-state prerequisites and error/return behavior despite being a drawing mutation tool.

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 only 17%, but the description compensates well by documenting x/y as center coordinates, radius as circumscribed radius, sides with a hexagon example, and sketch_index where 0 means latest sketch. The one omitted parameter, instance, is already documented in the schema.

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 — draw a regular polygon in a sketch — and is clearly distinguishable from sibling shape tools such as draw_rectangle, draw_circle, and draw_arc. It also specifies that dimensions are in mm.

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?

It implies the tool operates on a sketch via sketch_index, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus draw_closed_profile, draw_line, or other sketch tools, nor any prerequisites such as an existing active sketch.

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