Create a 2D sketch polyline in a new or existing sketch and verify the snapshot delta.
Create one 2D sketch polyline in a new or existing sketch and verify the snapshot delta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | SKETCH_POLYLINE_1 | |
| plane | No | XOY | |
| closed | No | ||
| points | 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'verify the snapshot delta,' hinting at a verification step, but omits side effects (e.g., mutation of the sketch), prerequisites (e.g., open document), or failure behavior. This is insufficient for a create operation.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the extreme brevity contributes to other dimensions being under-specified.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct points, what the snapshot delta verification entails, or what the tool returns. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.
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 with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanations for any of them. It does not clarify what 'points' should look like, the meaning of 'closed,' or the role of 'sketch_ref' versus 'create_new_sketch.' The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create one 2D sketch polyline' with the scope 'in a new or existing sketch.' The verb-resource combination is specific and differentiates this from other create_sketch_* tools (e.g., create_sketch_line_segment) by naming the polyline entity.
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 description offers minimal contextual guidance ('new or existing sketch') but does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_sketch_line_segment or create_sketch_circle. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving selection to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.