plasticity_create_three_point_circle

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false, so safety/state is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: exact deterministic construction and the concrete result shape ("closed Wire with an automatic Region"), which an agent needs to know what it produces.

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 front-loaded sentences with little waste; the construction constraint leads and the resolution rule and result follow. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return form (closed Wire with automatic Region), so the agent knows the outcome. The only gap is how the three points and plane are provided given the empty parameter schema, but for a native-construction tool the definition is largely complete.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 regardless of description. The description does add meaningful geometric semantics — the three points define plane, center, and radius, and inputs are interpreted in the referenced construction plane — though it leaves open how the points are actually supplied.

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 ("Create") plus resource ("circle") plus the defining method ("through three distinct non-collinear points"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling two-point and center-based circle tools. An agent can select it correctly without opening any 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?

Usage is only implied: the geometric construction method and the note that "plane-local inputs are resolved through the referenced construction plane" hint at when/how it applies. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. two_point_circle) is provided.

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