nx_sketch_arc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly says the operation is additive ('Add') and scoped to an explicit sketch reference, and that angles are in degrees. It does not disclose sketch-state prerequisites, angle origin/direction, or behavior on invalid references, but the core operation is transparent enough for a simple sketch-entity tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the operation, the entity type, the defining parameters, and the target sketch reference.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but not rich. It covers the purpose and all key parameters, but it omits usage guidance, angle convention, sketch-state requirements, and behavior when the sketch is unavailable, so the agent must rely on standard CAD assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by enumerating center, radius, start/end degrees, and the explicit sketch reference. It adds the meaningful detail that angles are in degrees, but it does not explain coordinate-system conventions, angle direction, or the Point2D format beyond what the schema already defines.

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 names a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('an arc ... to an explicit sketch reference'), and it identifies the defining inputs: center, radius, and start/end degrees. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling sketch tools such as nx_sketch_circle, nx_sketch_line, and nx_sketch_rectangle.

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 intended use is reasonably implied: add an arc to an explicitly referenced sketch. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as using nx_sketch_circle for a full circle, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the tool name.

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