Create a 2D sketch point in a new or existing sketch and verify the snapshot delta to confirm the change.
Create one 2D sketch point in a new or existing sketch and verify the snapshot delta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | SKETCH_POINT_1 | |
| plane | No | XOY | |
| point | 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one notable behavior: the tool 'verif[ies] the snapshot delta' after creation. However, it does not explain side effects on the document, permissions, or error/failure behavior, so transparency is only partial.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key behavioral addition in order of importance.
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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It covers the core object but says nothing about most parameters, side effects, return values, or realistic invocation scenarios.
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. 'New or existing sketch' adds some meaning to create_new_sketch/sketch_ref, but the other nine parameters (e.g., max_items, min_added, require_no_changed, require_no_removed, line_style) are left completely 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Create one 2D sketch point' in 'a new or existing sketch.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_sketch_line_segment or create_sketch_circle.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as create_sketch_entities for bulk creation or the other primitive creators. The 'new or existing sketch' clause implies a selection condition but provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.