plasticity_create_section_analysis

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description goes further by disclosing that the change is viewport-visible, bumps the MCP revision, and does not touch B-Rep or Undo history, plus the single-plane constraint and auto-derived xDirection. The only gap is what the MCP revision change implies for subsequent calls.

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?

Four tight sentences: geometry inputs first, then orientation behavior, then the single-plane constraint, then side effects. No restatement of the name or fillers, and every sentence earns its place.

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 complex viewport-state tool with no output schema, it covers the operation, side effects, revision impact, and exclusivity constraint. The remaining gap is the purpose of the name/intent parameters, which are neither described nor in the schema.

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 does explain originMm (world-space origin), normal (points toward the clipped half-space), and xDirection (optional, must be nonparallel, else derived). However, name, intent, and revision receive no explanation beyond a passing mention of 'revision', leaving half the parameters ambiguous.

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 ('Apply a native Plasticity section plane') plus the scope ('to the current viewport from a world-space origin and normal'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling plasticity_list_section_analyses and plasticity_delete_section_analysis. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete when-not constraint — only one active section plane is supported, so the agent must delete the existing one before applying another — which implies the alternative tool (plasticity_delete_section_analysis). It does not explicitly name that sibling or state when a section analysis is the right approach versus other planar-split tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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