project_edges

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 the projected geometry is exact and linked to the model, but it does not state prerequisites such as an active sketch/document, whether it modifies the sketch, or whether the projection is associative/editable and reversible.

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 with the core action, followed by a concise usage rationale and a compact Args section. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the main parameters are covered well. However, with no annotations and a mutation-like sketch operation, the description should say more about prerequisites, side effects, and how the projection interacts with existing sketch geometry.

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 low at 20%, so the description must compensate. It documents four of the five parameters with useful semantics: face_index projects all edges of a face, edge_indices specifies individual edges like "3,7,8", body_index selects a body in a multi-body part, and sketch_index 0 means the latest sketch. Only instance is omitted, and that is already described 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 gives a specific verb and resource: projecting a body's edges onto a sketch as exact lines, arcs, circles and splines linked to the model. It clearly distinguishes this from drawing/re-tracing siblings by emphasizing projection of existing geometry rather than creating curves point by point.

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 states a clear use case: building on existing or reference geometry, such as remodelling an imported part, instead of re-tracing curves. The alternative behavior is implied strongly, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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