cad_sketch_close

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that the sketch is posted as a feature and that require_well_formed can prevent posting. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., document modification) or potential error conditions, which is a gap for a mutation 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 sentences: first covers main purpose and output, second covers optional parameter. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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 that the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., an active sketch), but is largely sufficient for simple tool usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the require_well_formed parameter (well-formed check) and implicitly covers sessionId by context. This adds value beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the action ('post the sketch as one feature') and what it returns (featureId plus diagnostics). It distinguishes itself from other sketching tools (e.g., sketch_line, sketch_constrain) by being the finalization step.

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 provides explicit guidance on the require_well_formed parameter ('Set require_well_formed=true to refuse...'). It implies this tool is used after a sketch is created, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like cad_sketch_begin or cad_sketch_line, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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