plasticity_create_ellipse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by specifying that it produces a Wire and Region, defines the major axis via xDirection rotated by angleDegrees, and notes that inputs may use world coordinates or a referenced construction plane.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the creation action front-loaded and no wasted words. Each sentence contributes distinct information about output, orientation, and input coordinates.

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 creation tool with an empty input schema and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable conceptual overview but leaves invocation details ambiguous. It does not explain how the described radii, direction, angle, and plane inputs are actually supplied given the schema shows no parameters.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic meaning by naming major and minor radii, orientation via xDirection and angleDegrees, and coordinate modes, but it cannot fully compensate for the absence of any schema-level parameter details.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (elliptical Wire and Region) with scope (exact native closed) and method (from explicit major and minor radii). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling circle, arc, and polygon creation tools.

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 explains what the tool does and some input characteristics, but provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over alternatives like create_circle or create_slot_profiles, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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