plasticity_create_cone_development

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

With annotations only declaring write/safety hints, the description adds substantial behavioral context: six native history steps, Sheet validation, exact B-Rep length/area comparison against the source, no automatic retry or rollback, and guidance to inspect plasticity_status/changes after an interrupted error. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Front-loads the core action and geometry setup, then layers on history/validation and error-recovery guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the density is high and the error-handling clause could be tighter.

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 destructive-capable mutation tool with nested object params, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is unusually complete: preconditions, unsupported inputs, history side effects, error semantics, and source preservation are all covered. The only gap is that two parameters (intent, revision) are never explained.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies originMm (inner arc origin) and face (one complete native conical-frustum face with bodyId/faceId), but leaves intent and revision unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 (Create) and a precisely-specified resource (an exact area-preserving planar annular-sector Sheet from one complete native conical-frustum face). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling plasticity_analyze_cone_development, which analyzes rather than creates.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions (pointed cones, partial cone faces, faces with additional boundary loops are unsupported) and states the source Solid is preserved. It does not explicitly name the sibling analyze_cone_development as the alternative for the unsupported/inspection case, so it falls short of a full 5.

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