Create a 2D circle in a CAD sketch and verify the before/after snapshot delta to confirm only intended changes occur.
Create a sketch with one 2D circle and verify the before/after snapshot delta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | SKETCH_CIRCLE_1 | |
| plane | No | XOY | |
| center | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| min_added | No | ||
| line_style | No | ||
| sketch_ref | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| create_new_sketch | No | ||
| require_no_changed | No | ||
| require_no_removed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies a before/after snapshot delta, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond simple creation. However, it does not explain side effects, failure modes, or what the verification entails.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words, though the verification phrase is somewhat jargon-heavy but still concise.
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?
With 12 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not clarify how the verification parameters interact, what the return value is, or what 'verify' means in practice. This is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 does not explain any of the 12 parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names; e.g., max_items, min_added, require_no_changed, require_no_removed are entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific action (create) on a specific resource (sketch with one 2D circle) and adds a verification behavior. The circle specification clearly distinguishes it from sibling sketch creation tools like create_sketch_line_segment or create_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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other create_sketch_* tools. The description implies usage when a circle is needed, but does not name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.