plasticity_create_radius_measurement

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the measurement is persistent and attached to topology, participates in Undo/Redo (i.e., reversible), and is surfaced by plasticity_list_measurements with radius plus derived diameter in millimeters. It does not cover any permission or failure-mode behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then edge-reference mechanics, then persistence/output facts. Dense but each sentence carries new information; only the phrasing is slightly verbose.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the hard part (which edge identifier shape to supply and where to get it) plus persistence and Undo semantics. It falls short on explaining the required `revision` parameter and any failure conditions when the edge is not circular.

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%, so the description carries the burden and it partially does: it fully disambiguates the two-branch `edge` union (bodyId+segmentEntityId for Wire segments vs. bodyId+edgeId for Solid/Sheet edges) and their ID sources. However, the required `revision` token and the `name`/`intent` fields are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 persistent native Plasticity radius measurement'), constrains it to 'one exact current circular edge,' and thereby distinguishes itself from sibling measurement creators like create_topology_distance_measurement and create_vertex_distance_measurement as well as from the non-persistent set_radius_dimension.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: reference a Wire segment via bodyId + segmentEntityId sourced from plasticity_list_curve_directions, or a Solid/Sheet edge via bodyId + edgeId sourced from state. That is strong 'how/when to use' context, though it never names an alternative (e.g., set_radius_dimension) or states when not to use this tool.

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