fusion_sketch_circle

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nm unit and the radius/diameter alternative, but does not disclose what happens when both or neither are supplied, nor whether a new sketch entity is created on the active sketch. This is a meaningful but incomplete addition.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence. It conveys the action, resource, unit, and key parameter choice without superfluous words. Nothing is wasted.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no guidance on how it relates to an active sketch or plane, the description is incomplete. It omits critical call-preparation details: whether a sketch must already exist, how 'sketch: null' is resolved, and the constraint between diameter and radius. An agent may attempt the call with defaults and fail or behave unpredictably.

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%, so the description must carry the semantic weight. It usefully clarifies x/y as the circle center, units in diameter, and radius vs. diameter as an alternative. However it leaves 'plane' and 'sketch' unexplained, and does not explain their interaction or defaults.

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 action ('Draw a circle') and the resource ('circle'), and it adds the key construction method: center coordinates and radius/diameter in mm. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fusion_sketch_arc or fusion_sketch_polygon, but the resource 'circle' is sufficiently unique among the sibling list.

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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, whether an active sketch is required, or when the 'plane'/'sketch' parameters should be explicitly supplied. The description only states what it does, not the operating context or preconditions.

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