repair_sketch

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Plan or apply', implying a possible mutation but never stating whether applying a repair modifies the geometry destructively, whether it is reversible, what happens to existing constraints or dimensions, or what outputs are returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation-capable tool.

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 with no fluff, which is concise, but it is so terse that it leaves essential details unsaid. It is not a tautology, but it is closer to an under-specified tagline than a helpful description. The front-loading is fine, but the sentence is too thin to earn a higher score.

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 there are 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description's single sentence is far from complete. It does not explain what a repair scenario consists of, how operations are structured, how to identify the target sketch, or what result the agent should expect. An agent would need to probe or guess to use this tool confidently.

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 adds no information about the four parameters (apply, operations, sketch_ref, document_id). The terms 'bounded repair scenario' and 'plan or apply' vaguely suggest the apply boolean but do not explain the operations array, sketch_ref, or document_id semantics. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 clear action ('Plan or apply') and resource ('a bounded repair scenario for one existing sketch'), so an agent can tell it is about repairing an existing sketch rather than creating or inspecting one. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like repair_feature or update_sketch_entity_geometry, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternate sketch repair or editing tools. It does not explain when to choose 'plan' vs 'apply', what makes a repair scenario 'bounded', or any prerequisites like requiring an open document. There are no usage hints or exclusions beyond the terse action phrase.

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