Add driving dimensions to control sketch parametric sizing. Choose from distance, horizontal, vertical, angular, radial, or diameter with mm (degrees for angular) values.
Add a driving dimension. type: distance/horizontal/vertical/angular/radial/ diameter. value is mm (degrees for angular). Drives parametric sizing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| value | No | ||
| sketch | Yes | ||
| entity_one | Yes | ||
| entity_two | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool adds a dimension (write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and drives parametric sizing. It details types and units, providing useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.
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 very concise: three short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, lists types compactly using slashes, and includes units. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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 the complexity of 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains type and value but omits sketch and entity parameters, which are essential for using the tool correctly. The agent would likely need to infer or guess.
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 compensates partially by explaining the 'type' and 'value' parameters (including units). However, it does not explain the 'sketch', 'entity_one', or 'entity_two' parameters, which are critical for usage. Names alone may not be sufficient.
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 adds a driving dimension, lists specific types (distance, horizontal, vertical, angular, radial, diameter), and explains it drives parametric sizing. This distinguishes it from other sketch tools that create geometry.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or references to sibling tools like fusion_create_parameter or other dimension-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.