sketch_set_construction

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that this is a mutating toggle, that construction curves are excluded from profiles, that the operation applies to the whole curve set ('all or nothing'), and that the result includes curves, status and profiles. Remaining gaps are the exact semantics of the all-or-nothing failure mode and whether reversal is always possible.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: operation first, return shape next, example last. The standalone 'All or nothing.' fragment is cryptic in isolation and the returns line is partly restated by the example, but nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly names the returned fields. For a four-parameter sketch toggle this covers what an agent needs to call it; only the 'status' values and the failure behavior under the all-or-nothing rule are left unexplained.

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 75%, with sketch, construction and return_profiles already documented in the schema. The description adds value on the undocumented 'curves' parameter by showing a line reference in the example and tying it to the all-or-nothing constraint, plus it explains the profile-merge consequence that the schema never mentions.

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 concrete verb and resource: turn curves into construction geometry or back, with the clarifying parenthetical that construction geometry is not part of profiles. This is specific enough to distinguish it from adjacent sketch tools, though no sibling is named as a contrast.

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 implies when to use it (making geometry non-profile-driving), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not or any mention of alternatives such as sketch_delete or redrawing the curve. The 'All or nothing' line hints at a batch constraint without spelling it out.

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