offset_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only closed loops are offset and that lines, arcs, and circles preserve their geometry types, but it does not state whether the original sketch is modified or whether a new profile is created.

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 efficient. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the Args section adds only relevant parameter meaning without padding.

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 sketch-modifying CAD operation with no annotations, the description should ideally state prerequisites such as the need for closed loops and whether the existing sketch geometry is preserved or replaced.

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 25%, but the description compensates well: it explains distance in mm, side as "inside" or "outside", and sketch_index with 0 meaning latest. The remaining 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: offset every closed loop of a sketch. It distinguishes the operation from drawing or feature tools by describing the geometric outcome and giving concrete use cases like gasket grooves, walls, lips, and inner cut-outs.

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 examples make the intended usage clear: creating offset geometry such as grooves, walls, lips, and margins. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for related sketch operations.

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