sw_create_sketch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds that pattern, mirror and driving dimensions can be baked into the entity definitions. It does not disclose whether each call creates a fresh sketch feature or appends to an existing one, nor whether dimension names persist, which matters for a non-read-only tool.

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 tight sentences with the capability list front-loaded and the parametric-feature note second; no filler. The second sentence is slightly compressed into one clause covering three distinct concerns, but overall it is efficiently sized.

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 tool with 14 entity variants and 7 parameters, the description covers entity variety well but leaves the agent to discover plane/face selection, coordinate-mode switching and fully-defined behavior from the schema. With no output schema and modest annotation context, a bit more setup/placement guidance would materially help first-call correctness.

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 86%, so the schema already documents coordinates, dimension naming, patterns and mirroring in detail. The description only echoes the pattern/mirror/dimension trio at a high level and says nothing about `plane`, `fully_define`, `model_coordinates`, or `doc`, so it adds little 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?

Specific verb + resource ("Create a 2D sketch") followed by an exhaustive enumeration of supported entity kinds, which tells an agent exactly what geometry this tool covers. The word "2D" implicitly separates it from sw_create_3d_sketch, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the entity list and the note that dimensions make the model later editable via sw_set_dimension, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer sw_create_3d_sketch, sw_generate_wing (vs an airfoil entity), or the dedicated pattern tools over the inline `pattern` field, nor when to pick `plane` versus `face_point`.

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