Update the geometry of an existing sketch entity—point, segment, circle, or arc—by selecting it via reference, index, or fingerprint and providing new geometry values.
Update geometry for one existing point, segment, circle, or arc selected by reference, index, or fingerprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | No | ||
| geometry | No | ||
| sketch_ref | No | ||
| document_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates geometry but does not mention error handling, what happens if the entity is not found, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is 'existing', implying the entity must already exist. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action, the object, and the selection method, earning its place without redundancy.
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 mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is significantly incomplete. An agent cannot reliably call it because it lacks guidance on parameter formats, required fields, and expected outcomes. The description would need to explain the entity selection options and the geometry structure to be minimally usable.
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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It only hints that the entity can be selected by 'reference, index, or fingerprint', which loosely maps to the 'entity' parameter, but it does not clarify the format of geometry, sketch_ref, or document_id. The description adds very little beyond the parameter names.
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 states a specific verb (Update), a clear resource (geometry of one existing point, segment, circle, or arc), and a selection method (by reference, index, or fingerprint). This clearly distinguishes it from creation tools like create_sketch_point and from style tools like set_sketch_entity_style, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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?
It explicitly states the tool applies to 'one existing' entity, which implies it is not for creation, and it mentions three ways to select the entity. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as set_sketch_entity_style or delete_sketch_entity, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.