nx_finish_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 only says 'deactivate and finish', which implies ending sketch editing but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether changes are committed, if the sketch becomes immutable, or any error conditions). No prerequisites or consequences are mentioned.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 the tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), the description omits usage guidance and behavioral details. Given the absence of annotations, an agent lacks enough context to correctly invoke it, such as when it is appropriate or what happens after finishing. The output schema covers return values, but the operational context is incomplete.

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%, and the description adds no explanation of the sketch_id parameter beyond the schema's minimal title 'Sketch Id'. The description's phrase 'explicit sketch reference' is not clearer than the schema. Since it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, the score is low.

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 clear verb ('deactivate and finish') and resource ('explicit sketch reference'), indicating the action of ending a sketch. It is distinguishable from siblings like nx_create_sketch or nx_sketch_line, though the term 'explicit sketch reference' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active sketch) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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