nx_sketch_circle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a circle,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the sketch is modified in place, whether prior geometry is affected), error conditions (e.g., if sketch_id is invalid), or the return value despite the presence of an output schema. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. The key action and object are front-loaded, and it avoids fluff. While it is terse to the point of under-specification, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one. It earns a 4 for being concise and well-structured, though not perfect because it omits critical context that could be added without bloat.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which the description does not summarize), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of sketch_id, the units or reference frame for center and diameter, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with these characteristics, much more is needed for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

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. It mentions 'center + diameter' which aligns with the center and diameter parameters, but it does not describe the sketch_id parameter at all (only obliquely as 'explicit sketch reference'). It also does not clarify units, coordinate frame, or the exact expected structure of center. This leaves the agent to rely on the raw schema definitions, which lack explanatory detail.

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 (Add) and the resource (a circle defined by center and diameter) to an explicit sketch reference. It is distinct from sibling sketch primitives like nx_sketch_line, nx_sketch_rectangle, and nx_sketch_arc because it names the circle shape directly. However, it does not elaborate on what 'explicit' means (e.g., that a sketch_id must be provided) or mention the coordinate system, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it should be used when a circular profile is needed, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., an active sketch or that the sketch must be open). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely 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.