Apply constraints and dimensions to existing sketch entities by reference, index, or fingerprint, turning raw sketches into fully parameterized models.
Apply constraints/dimensions to existing sketch entities selected by reference, index, or fingerprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entities | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| dimensions | No | ||
| sketch_ref | No | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| sketch_options | 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 carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation operation but does not disclose side effects, such as whether existing constraints are overwritten, whether entities are modified in place, or if any validation occurs. The selection modes are mentioned but not elaborated.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easily scannable. However, it could benefit from a brief structure highlighting parameters or usage, but it does not waste words.
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 the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify entities, dimensions, or constraints, what the selection modes mean, or what the tool returns. An agent has insufficient information to call this tool correctly.
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 9 parameters. Parameters like entities, dimensions, constraints, and sketch_ref remain opaque. The description only mentions selection by reference/index/fingerprint, but does not map these to specific parameters, leaving agents with no semantic guidance.
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: applying constraints/dimensions to existing sketch entities. It specifies the selection modes (reference, index, fingerprint) which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_sketch_entity_style or update_sketch_entity_geometry, but the purpose is distinct enough.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active sketch, or when constraints should be applied instead of dimensions. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.