plasticity_create_rectangle

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it produces two entities (a Wire and a Region), not just geometry, and specifies the angle sign convention. It does not say whether existing geometry is consumed, whether the result is a new body, or anything about undo semantics.

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 sentences, both earning their place; construction inputs come first and the angle convention is appended as a footnote-style clarification. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is built and how it is parameterized but omits what happens to existing geometry, what the created Wire/Region are named or how they are selected afterward, and any failure/prerequisite conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 declares no properties at all, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it delivers real semantics: the rectangle is defined from its center, width and height, optionally on a referenced construction plane, and 'positive angle rotates the width axis around the plane normal in degrees' pins down the rotation convention. It still omits parameter names, units for length, and which inputs are optional.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create an exact native rectangular Wire and Region,' plus the defining inputs (center, width, height, plane). It is clearly distinct from create_circle/create_regular_polygon/create_box, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with set_rectangle_dimensions, so differentiation is by inference rather than statement.

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 mention of 'world coordinates or a referenced construction plane' implies the two placement contexts in which the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisite about needing an active construction plane, and no alternative tool named.

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