plasticity_create_construction_plane

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'native saved' (implying document persistence) but says nothing about the required revision/concurrency token, whether the operation modifies existing geometry, or how the five definition variants behave. Little value beyond annotations.

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. It is well-structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail the complex schema needs.

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 tool with a 5-variant polymorphic definition parameter, a required revision parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is substantially under-specified. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid 'definition' from this description.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely gestures at one parameter ('an exact plane definition') and never explains the five oneOf variants (explicit, three-points, planar-face, offset, rotated), the required 'revision' token, or the 'intent' field.

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 resource ('construction plane'), qualified as 'native saved' and sourced from 'an exact plane definition'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like plasticity_list_construction_geometry or plasticity_remove_construction_plane, though it does not address when to prefer it over plasticity_set_workplane.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings such as plasticity_set_workplane, plasticity_define_datum_point/axis, and plasticity_remove_construction_plane, the description should route among these but gives nothing.

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