Auto-Constrain Sketch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly structured. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: option 3 may move geometry within tolerance, and the tool requires Fusion 2026+ AutoConstrain API. It doesn't say what happens to pre-existing constraints or how failure is reported, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact option mapping and a version note. It is efficient, though the option mapping duplicates the schema and is slightly redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the outcome, the version requirement, and the notable side effect of the geometry-moving option. No return values need explaining, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so result_option's meaning is already fully documented in the schema, and the description's '1 = thorough/slow, 2 = fast, 3 = may move geometry' largely restates it. No added syntax, bounds rationale, or interaction between the option and sketch_name is provided, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb (add geometric constraints and dimensions), the resource (a sketch), and the outcome (fully constrain), which clearly separates it from the manual add_constraint/add_dimension siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied by 'fully constrain a sketch' — an agent can infer this is the bulk alternative to manually adding constraints. However, it never states when to prefer this over add_constraint/add_dimension, nor any prerequisites (e.g., which sketch state is valid), leaving the routing to inference.

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