Auto-Constrain Sketch

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

Annotations already declare the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds valuable context that result_option=3 may move geometry within tolerance and that the tool aims to fully constrain a sketch, giving insight into side effects beyond the basic mutation. It does not mention potential removal of existing constraints, but the annotations cover the core behavior.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the result_option explained in a single line. However, the result_option explanation duplicates the schema's enum descriptions, making it slightly redundant. Still, it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 mutation tool without an output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies the operation and options, but it does not mention what happens if the sketch is already fully constrained, potential error conditions, or any prerequisites beyond sketch existence. Given the simplicity, it is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 coverage is 100%: both sketch_name and result_option have descriptions, including the full enum meaning for result_option. The description repeats the enum values, which adds no new information beyond the schema. sketch_name is not addressed in the description, but the schema already documents its default behavior.

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 (add) and resource (geometric constraints and dimensions to a sketch), and clearly distinguishes it from the singular add_constraint/add_dimension tools by being automatic and thorough. It also mentions the Fusion 2026+ API version, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for fully constraining a sketch, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like add_constraint or add_dimension, nor does it state when not to use this tool. There is no exclusion or condition to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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