plasticity_create_topology_distance_measurement

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds that the measurement is persistent, stays attached to topology, participates in Undo/Redo, and carries stable measurement/topology identities — real behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It omits any note on permissions or failure modes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. There is mild overlap between 'persistent' and 'remains attached to topology', but it is close to fully earning its length.

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 with no output schema and no annotation detail on behavior, the description covers the endpoint model and persistence well but leaves name, intent, and revision unexplained, so an agent lacks the full picture needed to invoke it confidently.

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%, and the description does compensate for the two most complex parameters by explaining that each endpoint may be a vertex, edge midpoint, or face center. However, it says nothing about name, intent, or revision, leaving three of five parameters with no semantic help in either schema or description.

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 ('Create') and resource ('persistent native Plasticity point-to-point distance measurement') with clear scope ('between two current Solid or Sheet topology points'). The 'persistent'/'native' framing implicitly separates it from transient measure tools, but it never names the relevant siblings (plasticity_measure_point_distance, plasticity_create_vertex_distance_measurement), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description explains what the tool creates but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among the many measurement siblings. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer it over plasticity_measure_point_distance or plasticity_create_vertex_distance_measurement.

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