add_rectangle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the rectangle being 'fully-constrained' and 'locked in place,' which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not mention potential failures, permissions, or what happens to existing sketch geometry.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief introductory sentence, a short paragraph on the constraint benefit, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple geometry-add tool. It covers purpose, benefit, and parameter semantics. It doesn't discuss prerequisites like whether the sketch must exist or be open, but the sibling tools (e.g., create_sketch) imply this context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates by describing all six parameters with meaningful details. For example, 'width' is clarified as 'along the sketch's local X axis' and coordinates are specified as 'sketch-local space,' adding semantics beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Add a fully-constrained rectangle to a sketch, corner at (x, y).' This is a specific verb + resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_circle and add_polygon.

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 explains when this tool is advantageous: 'the sketch is immediately safe to pad/pocket — no separate dimensioning step needed.' This gives clear context for use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention when not to use it.

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