create_sketch_ellipse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral trait ('verify the snapshot delta') and mentions new-or-existing sketch support. However, it does not explain what happens on verification failure, side effects beyond creation, or any preconditions.

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 and front-loaded core action. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the spare sentence to add one or two parameter or usage clarifications.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no schema description coverage, this description is too sparse. The agent can infer the primary operation but lacks enough context to know how defaults interact, required inputs for a new sketch, or what the verification behavior actually validates.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and 14 parameters; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameter names like radius_x and plane hint at their roles, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving center format, line_style, require_no_changed, and others 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create one 2D sketch ellipse') and adds useful scope ('in a new or existing sketch'). It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling entity-creation tools like create_sketch_circle or create_sketch_entities.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need a single 2D ellipse in a sketch. It does not compare against alternatives or state when to prefer create_sketch_entities for multiple entities, so usage guidance is present but not explicit.

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