cad_sketch_constrain

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the types of constraints and the special case for ground_origin, but does not mention side effects on existing constraints, required active sketch, or return 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 three sentences and covers essential information without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, slight improvement could be made by separating the ground_origin special case more clearly.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers types and parameter formats but omits the sessionId purpose, required fields beyond 'type', and return values. Adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing valid 'type' values, explaining the format for 'a', 'b', and 'c' parameters, and describing the ground_origin behavior. Adds meaning 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?

The description clearly states 'Add a geometric constraint' with a specific list of constraint types, and explains the format of entity IDs. It distinguishes the tool from sibling sketch tools by focusing solely on constraints.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sketch tools (e.g., line, dimension) or any prerequisites like having an active sketch. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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