nx_create_sketch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool both creates and activates a sketch, but it does not mention side effects, failure conditions, or whether previous sketch state is affected. This is sparse for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler, clearly front-loading the core action. However, its brevity leaves out contextual and behavioral information that would make it more useful.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, but there are no annotations and the description is minimal. Missing usage guidance, parameter semantics, and prerequisites leave the agent without enough context to reliably decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at the 'plane' parameter through 'principal datum plane' and says nothing about the 'name' parameter or its optional/nullable behavior. The schema enum and default help, but the description adds little parameter meaning.

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 specific action ('Create and activate') and a specific resource ('a sketch on a principal datum plane'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes the tool from sibling sketch geometry, listing, and finishing tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nx_finish_sketch or sketch geometry tools. It also omits prerequisites like whether a part must be open or whether an existing active sketch must be finished first.

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