sketch_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses atomicity ('All or nothing'), that include creates a linked copy (dependency behavior), that a body projects all its edges, and that return_profiles=false is faster. It omits failure behavior and whether created curves are construction geometry, so it is not exhaustive.

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 the first line, modes and return shape follow in scannable blocks, and the example is one line. No sentence is filler.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description supplies the return shape ({created, status, profiles}) plus the cost tradeoff of return_profiles. For a 4-parameter geometry tool this covers everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: it explains projection behavior per entity type and the worked example shows a face ref yielding a face outline. The mode explanations largely mirror the enum description, so it is additive rather than fully compensating.

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 and resource ('bring model geometry into the sketch as reference curves') and immediately enumerates the four modes with their distinct semantics. An agent can distinguish this from sketch_draw / sketch_offset / sketch_trim siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives intent-level guidance ('to dimension or constrain against, or to close profiles') that tells the agent why to call this rather than drawing curves manually, and the mode list functions as a when-to-use-each breakdown. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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