plasticity_create_sphere

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by specifying 'exact' geometry and millimeter units, but says nothing about whether a new body is created, how it interacts with the current selection, or how the required 'revision' token behaves.

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?

A single short sentence with the unit qualifier front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place; the thinness is a completeness problem, not a verbosity problem.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. It omits any mention of the required revision token, naming/intent parameters, or what the call returns or affects, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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% across five parameters, and the description only implies units for centerMm and radiusMm via 'millimeters'. Required parameters 'revision' and the optional 'name'/'intent' fields are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the prose, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 an ... CAD sphere'), which cleanly separates it from sibling primitives such as create_box, create_cylinder, create_cone, and create_torus. The 'exact CAD' phrasing also signals B-rep/solid geometry rather than a tessellated mesh. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from any sibling by name or scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites (e.g., active document, workplane, or revision context). The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the right call for a solid sphere primitive.

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