create_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well by disclosing units ('Geometry is mm'), coordinate frame ('local to the selected KOMPAS plane, not world XYZ'), and the support_entity_id alternative. It stops short of describing return values, document side effects, or error behavior, which prevents a top score.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main capability in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence contributing distinct information (units, revolution prerequisite, coordinate frame, support entity). The revolution sentence is slightly disjointed but not wasteful.

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?

The description captures key environmental constraints for a complex nested schema, including mm units, local coordinates, plane vs support_entity selection, and the revolution-axis requirement. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return/status behavior, angle units, or document mutation effects, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that coordinates/geometry are in mm and local to the plane, and that support_entity_id accepts a native face or construction plane instead of plane/offset. It does not describe document_id or arc angle units, but the added semantic context is substantial.

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 the action ('Draw'), the resource (a KOMPAS sketch containing circles, arcs, and polylines), and the plane scope ('XY/XZ/YZ or offset planes'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 2D draw_* tools, though the 'Sketch coordinates' and 'KOMPAS plane' phrasing make the CAD-sketch intent 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 gives clear usage context: it explains that geometry is in mm, coordinates are local to the selected plane, support_entity_id can replace plane/offset selection, and revolution profiles need an open two-point construction polyline. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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