Copy features to every point of a sketch to create irregular hole patterns. Ideal for non-uniform layouts where standard patterns fail.
Copy features to every point of a sketch (irregular hole layouts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Document title or path. Defaults to the active document. | |
| name | No | Optional name for the new feature. | |
| sketch | Yes | Sketch whose points mark where copies go. | |
| features | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this creates something without deleting. The description adds that source features are 'copied' to sketch points, implying originals are preserved, but says nothing about what feature/result is created, whether it is editable later, or what happens if the sketch has zero points.
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?
A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the typical use case immediately after. Nothing redundant, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool rather than padded.
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 four parameters with mostly documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the core idea (copying features onto sketch points). What is missing—result type, behavior on failed/empty sketches—is modest for a tool of this complexity.
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 75%: doc, name and sketch all have descriptions, and only the 'features' array lacks one. The description's word 'features' partially maps to that parameter but adds no format, selection, or ordering guidance, so it does not compensate meaningfully 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?
States a specific verb (copy) and resource (features to sketch points) and parenthetically names the use case (irregular hole layouts). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the pattern siblings (sw_linear_pattern, sw_circular_pattern, sw_curve_pattern), so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 phrase '(irregular hole layouts)' implies when this pattern type is appropriate versus linear/circular patterns, but no sibling is named and no exclusion or prerequisite is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.