Create Polygon

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether the polygon becomes a closed profile usable by extrude, what happens if no sketch exists, or whether it lands as a new body or sketch curve. The most valuable behavioral note (curves lie in the sketch plane, use create_sketch z_offset to move the plane) sits in the schema, not the description.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint (most recent sketch) is placed where it matters. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification rather than crisp economy.

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 5-parameter geometry primitive with no output schema this is close to adequate — the agent knows what is drawn and where. But with 40% schema coverage it should at minimum clarify the center-coordinate frame and the sketch prerequisite, which are exactly the details an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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 only 40% and the description compensates for none of the gaps. It never explains that 'sides' is an integer 3-64 defining edge count, that center_x/center_y position the polygon within the sketch plane (defaulting to the origin), or what coordinate frame those values are in — leaving three of five parameters with no meaning beyond their names.

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 ("Draw") plus specific resource ("a regular polygon") plus placement scope ("in the most recent sketch"). It is naturally distinguishable from draw_rectangle, draw_circle and draw_line without opening a schema, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Most recent sketch" implies a sketch must already exist and that this tool cannot target an arbitrary sketch, which is useful. Beyond that there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of create_sketch as the prerequisite step, and no comparison to the other draw_* siblings.

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