plasticity_create_regular_polygon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful geometry semantics ('exact native', vertex limit, coordinate frame options) but says nothing about whether existing geometry is replaced, what is selected/created, or how the result interacts with the current construction plane state.

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 core action and vertex constraint, then the two modes, then the coordinate caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the radiusMode sentence is dense compared to the rest.

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 schema, no output schema, and annotations that only cover the safety profile, the description supplies the essential geometry contract (vertex range, radius semantics, coordinate frame). A brief note on output/body-vs-region behavior or plane defaulting would close the remaining gap.

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 exposes no properties at all, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does: it names radiusMode with its two values (circumradius vs inradius) and defines radius as vertex-to-center versus center-to-edge distance. It stops short of enumerating center coordinates or plane-reference argument names, but adds clear meaning beyond the (empty) schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create one exact native closed regular-polygon Wire and Region with 3-256 vertices.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling creators like plasticity_create_circle, plasticity_create_rectangle, and plasticity_create_ellipse by naming the exact primitive and its vertex-count range.

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 description explains the two radiusMode behaviors and that inputs may use world coordinates or a construction plane, which is actionable context. However, it never states when to choose this polygon over an alternative (e.g., create_circle for smooth shapes, create_rectangle for quads), so usage is only implied.

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