create_sketch_rectangle

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a sketch but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing sketches, how variables are used, or confirmation of success). The behavioral impact is minimally covered.

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 very concise at one sentence and 12 words. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Front-loaded with the core action, but missing critical context for a multi-parameter tool.

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, 5 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the coordinate system, units, plane options, the role of variable references, or what happens upon creation. Significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'optional variable references' but does not elaborate on how variableWidth and variableHeight are used beyond the schema's own descriptions. No significant added 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 clearly states it creates a rectangular sketch in a Part Studio with optional variable references. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sketch tools like create_sketch_circle or create_sketch_line, though the name and context make the purpose clear.

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, no exclusions, and no information about prerequisites or context (e.g., requiring an existing Part Studio element). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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