plasticity_check_interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it operates on native B-Rep clones in a temporary database, does not affect the document or Undo history, and clarifies that a negative result does not distinguish touching from separation.

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?

The three sentences are tightly structured: purpose first, behavior second, and result limitation third. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only check operation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives strong behavioral context and clearly bounds the meaning of results. It remains incomplete on parameter semantics, especially the revision input and pair identifier format.

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% for two required parameters. The description mentions 'pairs' and 'current Solid bodies,' which somewhat maps to the pairs parameter, but it provides no explanation of body ID semantics, pair structure, maximum pair count, or the required revision parameter.

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 and resource: checking explicit pairs of current Solid bodies for exact volumetric interference. It also distinguishes this from adjacent measurement concepts by explicitly stating it is not a minimum-clearance measurement.

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?

It clearly implies usage for exact volumetric interference and explicitly excludes minimum-clearance interpretation, giving useful context for selecting the tool. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-not conditions beyond the clearance caveat.

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