plasticity_create_circle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. But the description adds almost no behavior beyond that: it doesn't say which plane is used by default, whether the circle is a fixed/undoable document edit, or what happens when no construction plane is referenced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the placement options come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 sitting among many near-identical siblings, with no output schema and an empty input schema, the description does too little: it omits how the circle is defined, what the default construction plane is, and any disambiguation from the other circle tools.

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 schema exposes zero parameters and 100% coverage, so by the baseline rule for parameterless tools a 4 is appropriate. The description's mention of world coordinates vs. a referenced plane is the only signal about what context the call consumes, which is mildly useful but not parameter-level detail.

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 and resource ('Create a native circle') and even names the two placement modes (world coordinates or a referenced construction plane). However, it does not distinguish this from the several sibling circle constructors (two_point_circle, three_point_circle, tangent_circle, ellipse), leaving the agent to guess which creation method this represents.

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 phrase 'in world coordinates or a referenced construction plane' hints at placement context but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. An agent choosing among five circle-creation siblings gets no discriminating rule for picking this one.

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