Draw a polyline through [x,y,z] mm points in a new SketchUp group; set close_face=true to close back to the first point and create a face.
Draw a polyline through [x,y,z] mm points in a new group. close_face=true: closes back to the first point and creates a face (the result has face_created).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| points | Yes | ||
| close_face | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond that: geometry is placed in a new group, close_face changes topology by creating a face, and the result is signaled via a face_created field. It omits failure modes and return structure detail, keeping it from 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. The conditional behavior is packed efficiently into a single clause.
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 4-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. The points and close_face behavior are covered, but tag/name meaning and the overall return shape remain unaddressed.
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 carry the load. It clarifies the points format ([x,y,z] mm) and the close_face semantics, covering half the parameters well, but tag and name are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (Draw) and resource (polyline) through [x,y,z] mm points in a new group, which is clearly distinguishable from creation siblings like create_box and create_shape. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor routing to an alternative tool. The conditional 'close_face=true' explanation implies usage but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice versus create_shape or create_box.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.