sketch_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect — the rectangle is added as four line entities — but says nothing about permission/auth needs, what happens on out-of-range or duplicate coordinates, whether existing sketch geometry is preserved, or the response.

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 short sentence with the resource and its behavioral consequence front-loaded; no filler, no redundancy, and the parenthetical earns its place by telling the agent what geometry results.

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 3-parameter primitive with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool makes and in what form. The remaining gap is preconditions and failure behavior, which 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 100%, so the schema already documents sketch name and both [x, y] mm corners, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'axis-aligned' adds a small amount of meaning by implying the two corners are treated as opposite corners of an axis-aligned box rather than arbitrary points.

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 ('Add') plus resource ('axis-aligned rectangle') with a clarifying parenthetical that it materializes as four lines. This clearly distinguishes it from sketch_line, sketch_circle and sketch_arc without naming them, though no explicit sibling contrast is given.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the target sketch must already exist), and no mention of when an agent should prefer four sketch_line calls or another primitive instead. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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