Create a constrained rectangle sketch on a principal plane (XY, YZ, or XZ) with specified width, height, and centering, enabling precise 2D geometry for NX part modeling.
Create a constrained, named rectangle sketch on a principal datum plane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| plane | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| centered | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the created object as a constrained, named sketch, but does not explain side effects, session mutation, coordinate system implications, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal behavioral context.
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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail; that gap is better penalized under other dimensions.
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 five parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It leaves width, height, centered behavior, plane enum semantics, units, and expected results undocumented.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at 'name' and 'plane', while width, height, and centered are completely unaddressed. No units, constraint meaning, or default behavior is explained.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('rectangle sketch'), and adds distinguishing traits: constrained, named, on a principal datum plane. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like nx_create_circle_sketch.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as nx_create_circle_sketch, nor any prerequisites like an active part or session state. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.