Add Sketch Dimension

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description doesn't need to restate it. But it discloses nothing about behavior beyond that: no mention of what happens on over-constraint, that the operation is undoable, or what state the sketch must be in.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second and third sentences restate the same cm/degrees rule, which is redundant rather than wasteful, so it stays readable but could be tightened.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering failure/state behavior, the description is minimally adequate: it covers units but omits sketch-state prerequisites and constraint-conflict behavior an agent would need.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description's unit conventions (cm for lengths, degrees for angles) largely duplicate what the schema already states on the value parameter, adding little beyond it.

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 (add), resource (driving dimension), and scope (sketch geometry constraint). An agent can distinguish it from add_constraint (which adds geometric constraints) and measure_distance/measure_angle (which measure rather than constrain).

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 indication of when to use this versus the sibling add_constraint or auto_constrain, nor prerequisites such as the sketch needing to be active/edited. The only guidance given is about units, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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