plasticity_create_torus

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine context: the result is an exact solid that preserves an editable native circular profile within a single history step. It does not explain effects on existing geometry or the meaning of the required revision token, but the profile-preservation/history detail is real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the creation action and its key output characteristic. The second sentence is a somewhat dense list, but every clause conveys information; nothing is padded.

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 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the geometric intent well but omits the semantics of the required revision token and gives no hint of what the tool returns or how the new body is identified. Adequate but with a clear gap where the required revision parameter is concerned.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the geometry inputs: center, major radius measured to the tube centerline, minor tube radius, symmetry axis, and radial zero direction, plus the constraint that major radius must exceed minor radius. It leaves name, intent, and especially the required revision parameter unexplained, so compensation is strong but not complete.

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 (exact ring torus Solid) and qualifies the output as an editable native circular profile in one history step, marking it apart from the many curve/profile and primitive siblings like plasticity_revolve_profile or plasticity_create_sphere. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. revolve_profile) or any preconditions beyond the geometric constraint. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource name; no exclusions or context are given.

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