plasticity_create_tangent_arc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them, notably that flipTangent inverts the tangent sense and can yield the major rather than minor arc, but it never explains what the destructive hint means here (what existing geometry is affected) or how the new arc relates to the parent wire.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite tool and flipTangent caveat follow in priority order. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters in the schema, so the description must carry the load, and it covers tangency conditions, the flipTangent side effect, prerequisite discovery tool, and coordinate-frame options. It is nearly complete, missing only the required-selection precondition wording and what the operation returns.

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 zero properties, so the baseline is high, and the description supplies meaning for arguments the schema does not expose: flipTangent's tangent-sense inversion and that the end point may be given in world coordinates or via a referenced construction plane. It still omits any format specifics for those coordinates.

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 exact native circular arc) with precise qualifiers: tangent to a selected Wire segment at its start or end, terminating at an explicit point. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling arc tools such as create_center_arc and create_three_point_arc, which have no tangency constraint.

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 names a prerequisite workflow explicitly: use plasticity_list_curve_directions to obtain the segment entity and its exact endpoints, which tells the agent how to set up the call. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over tangent-circle or three-point-arc alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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