add_sketch_geometry

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is an append (a mutation) and that it returns Sketcher-assigned indices, but omits prerequisites such as requiring an active sketch/document, transaction requirements, failure modes, and reversibility.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence; the item formats are presented as a compact bullet list; the return note is a single terse line. No sentence is redundant.

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?

For a CAD tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the critical items payload and return value, but leaves the sketch parameter undefined and omits required context such as active document/sketch state and transaction handling.

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% and the items parameter is an untyped array. The description compensates by specifying the full shape of each item type (line, circle, arc, point) with coordinates and fields, though it does not explain the sketch parameter.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: append geometric primitives to a sketch, and enumerates the supported primitive types. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_sketch_constraint and add_sketch_external, which add different sketch elements.

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 usage for adding geometry before constraints and gives the return indices for that purpose, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as add_sketch_external or close_sketch. No prerequisites (active sketch, transaction) or exclusions are given.

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