select_plane

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

Annotations already tell the agent this is non-destructive and idempotent but not read-only, i.e. it changes selection state. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — base plane names are locale-independent ("works with SolidWorks in any language"). It does not describe what happens on an invalid name or what the selection state becomes.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that packs the allowed values and the named-plane path without wasted words. Slightly long and the parenthetical axis labels interrupt the flow, but it is efficient.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the only real gap (valid values for the single argument). A note about required context (active document/selection) would close the remaining gap.

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 0% and the single required parameter is an unconstrained string, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it lists the three base plane names with their axis mappings and explains that other plane names (e.g. from create_plane) are accepted. Only the exact matching rules (case sensitivity, quoting) are left unstated.

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+resource ("Selects a plane") and enumerates exactly what can be selected. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from create_plane, the sibling that makes a plane rather than selecting one.

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 implies the two usage modes — passing a built-in base plane name or a named plane created elsewhere ("e.g. one made by create_plane"). It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives like start_sketch or select_face_at_point, nor does it state any preconditions (e.g. an active document).

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