plasticity_create_center_arc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral conventions: positive sweep is counterclockwise around the plane normal, the sweep must be under 360 degrees, and inputs may be world coordinates or a referenced plane. It does not contradict the annotations, and the magnitude limit is a real constraint an agent needs.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the sign/magnitude convention, then coordinate-system options. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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 geometry-creation tool with no output schema and an empty input schema, the description covers purpose, sign conventions, magnitude limits, and coordinate options well. It omits return behavior and units, but nothing essential to invoking 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?

The input schema is empty ({}) with zero properties, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning, and it supplies the full set (center, radius, start angle, signed sweep, optional plane). It adds semantics (signed sweep, CCW-positive) but gives no types or units, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Create one exact native circular arc') and defines it by its construction inputs (center, radius, start angle, signed sweep), which intrinsically distinguishes it from the point-based siblings like create_three_point_arc. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 explains how the arc is constructed but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_three_point_arc, create_circle, or create_tangent_arc. Usage is only implied by the parameter list, with no alternatives or conditions stated.

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