Add Sketch Geometry

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

Annotations only say the call is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that it appends geometry and returns Sketcher-assigned indices for use in constraints. It also discloses that arc angles are in radians and that 'construction' is optional on lines, which are useful behavioral details beyond the structured fields.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, a bullet list defines the item variants, and a final line documents the return value. Every element adds information needed to call the tool, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and an empty items schema, the description provides the missing contract: item structures, units for arc angles, and the return shape. It doesn't explain how to identify a sketch, and it doesn't mention failure conditions or interaction with add_sketch_constraint beyond the returned indices, but those are minor gaps given the simple parameter set.

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 description coverage, the input schema provides no meaning for either parameter. The description compensates well for 'items' by specifying each accepted dict shape and field, but it leaves the 'sketch' string parameter undocumented, assuming the agent will infer it is a sketch identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Append geometric primitives to a sketch') and then enumerates the exact primitive types (line, circle, arc, point). This makes it distinguishable from siblings such as add_sketch_constraint and add_sketch_external without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 purpose statement implies the tool is for adding primitives to a sketch, but it never says when not to use it or names alternatives like add_sketch_constraint. For an agent choosing among many CAD tools, the usage context is clear only by inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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