Create a 2D line segment in a CAD sketch and verify the before/after snapshot delta to validate the operation.
Create a sketch with one 2D line segment and verify the before/after snapshot delta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| name | No | SKETCH_LINE_1 | |
| plane | No | XOY | |
| start | 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?
With no annotations available, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool both creates geometry and verifies a before/after snapshot delta, which is useful because similar creation tools might only create. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure semantics.
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 one sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action before the verification behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, this is too sparse. The critical defaults and relationships among parameters, such as the snapshot verification flags, are left to the agent to infer, so a correct call beyond the defaults is underspecified.
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 input schema has 12 parameters and 0% description coverage. The description explains none of them, so an agent cannot know how start/end coordinates, plane, create_new_sketch, or the require_* flags are meant to be used.
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 operation (create) and resource (a sketch with one 2D line segment), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_sketch_circle or create_sketch_polyline. The added verification behavior is also stated.
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 implied by the resource named, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent can infer it is the line-segment creator from the purpose, but nothing excludes or routes to related sketch tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.