add_sketch_to_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool mutates workspace state but not whether the file is copied or merely referenced, what happens if the sketch is already present, whether the workspace must be open first, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler, which is well sized for a one-liner. It is efficient but so terse that the agent gains no structural cues about preconditions or side effects.

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?

Mislabeled above; corrected reasoning: for a three-parameter mutation with a nested object and no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. Required prerequisites, duplicate handling, and whether the sketch is copied or linked are all absent, so an agent cannot call it confidently in edge cases. Score 2.

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 100%, so the schema already documents sketchPath, label, and the position sub-object including the auto-placement default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate rather than higher.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('an existing .genart sketch file') with its destination ('active workspace'), which is clearly more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as open_sketch, save_sketch, or remove_sketch_from_workspace, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The phrase 'active workspace' only implicitly signals a prerequisite (that a workspace is open and current), and nothing tells the agent whether to use this versus open_sketch or add_component.

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