Sketch a circle

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Add a sketch holding one circle,' which restates the title and implies a mutating operation but does not mention validation, regeneration, or any side effects on the document. The 'validate' parameter suggests a failure-checking behavior that is not mentioned in the description.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise and to the point. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context that could be added without excessive length, such as a hint about plane selection or feature naming. Still, it earns a 4 for being appropriately compact relative to its simplicity.

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 has 9 parameters and operates in a complex CAD context, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify whether it creates a new sketch element or adds to an existing one, how it interacts with other tools like onshape_create_sketch, or any prerequisites. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the overall workflow and relationship to sibling tools remain unclear.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description is not required to compensate for schema gaps, but it offers no extra value.

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 states a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('a sketch holding one circle'), which distinguishes it from other sketch tools like onshape_sketch_rectangle or onshape_sketch_line. It is specific enough for an agent to infer the tool's primary function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling sketch tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_create_sketch or other sketch tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or when a different tool should be selected instead.

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