Create a 2D sketch on a planar face of a body using the face index from list faces. Sketch coordinates are local to that face, enabling precise geometry placement.
Create a sketch ON a planar face of a body. Get the face index from fusion_list_faces (is_planar=true). Sketch coordinates are then local to that face.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| face | Yes | ||
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds that coordinates are local to the face, which is useful. It does not disclose potential errors or side effects, but given annotation coverage, it is adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences with no extraneous words. The key information is front-loaded: the action and prerequisite.
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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and a usage hint but omits details on return values and the 'name' parameter. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the 'face' parameter's origin and coordinate locality. However, it does not explain the 'body' or 'name' parameters, leaving gaps.
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 verb 'create', the resource 'sketch on a planar face', and differentiates from siblings like fusion_create_sketch by specifying the face constraint.
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?
Explicitly suggests using fusion_list_faces to obtain the face index, providing a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.