plasticity_create_three_point_arc

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

The annotations already declare that this is not read-only and is destructive, so the creation behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: point order selects the minor or major arc, start-to-end direction is preserved, and inputs can be in world coordinates or on a referenced construction plane.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the geometry, the second explains point-order effects, and the third explains coordinate-system options. The core purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 an arc-creation tool with no output schema and annotations covering mutation safety, the description gives enough geometric and coordinate-system context to call it correctly. It does not explain prerequisites such as active document or selection state, but its core behavioral and input semantics are adequately covered.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds input semantics by noting that coordinates may be world coordinates or use a referenced construction plane, although it does not enumerate individual point parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a native circular arc, defined precisely by a start point, a through point, and an end point. That geometric construction distinguishes it from center-arc and tangent-arc siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the three-point construction: use this when the arc must pass through a second point between endpoints. However, the description never explicitly compares this tool to alternatives such as create_center_arc or create_tangent_arc, nor does it state when not to use it.

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