nx_sketch_rectangle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Add a rectangle' without disclosing side effects, coordinate interpretation, orientation, prerequisites, constraints, or what happens if the sketch reference is invalid. Significant behavioral details are left unspecified.

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 wasted words. The action and target are presented directly and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the one-line description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics and behavioral details needed to call the tool correctly, despite the presence of an output schema.

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 names none of the parameters. The meanings of sketch_id, corner1, and corner2 are completely undocumented, so the agent cannot infer that corner1/corner2 likely define opposite diagonal corners of the rectangle.

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 ('Add') and resource ('rectangle') plus an explicit target ('explicit sketch reference'), which distinguishes it from sibling sketch tools like line, circle, and arc. It does not clarify whether the rectangle is axis-aligned or arbitrary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is for adding a rectangle to a sketch. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direction toward sibling alternatives such as nx_sketch_line or nx_sketch_circle.

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