edit_sketch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the sketch stays open, must be exited to save changes, and that a rebuild while open will exit it on SW 2026 ES. It also notes that other sketch tools work as on a fresh sketch. Missing error handling (e.g., sketch not found) slightly reduces score.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes both Spanish and English, which may be redundant but adds clarity for bilingual users. Key sections: purpose, usage, args, returns, caveat.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thorough: explains purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, return value, and related tools. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by specifying the parameter 'sketch_name' as an exact name with an example ('Croquis1'). This adds meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reopening an existing sketch for editing (dimensions, relations, geometry) without rebuilding the part. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for editing, not creating.

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 description provides a typical CSWA usage example and explicitly mentions when to use alternatives like create_sketch or modify_dimension. It also instructs that after editing, the user must exit with a sketch-consuming operation to lock changes.

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