plasticity_create_two_point_circle

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description's job is to add behavioral context, which it does: it discloses the geometric constraint on the plane normal, that plane-local inputs inherit the construction plane, and that the output is a closed Wire with an automatic Region. It does not explain why a create call carries destructiveHint=true, leaving one gap.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by coordinate rules and result topology. No filler, though the coordinate clause is dense enough that it could have been split for readability.

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, yet the description states the result type (closed Wire with automatic Region), and it documents the coordinate/perpendicularity constraints. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only omission being the reason behind the destructive annotation.

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?

With 0 declared parameters, the baseline is 4. The description nonetheless clarifies how implied inputs are interpreted (world vs plane-local, plane normal perpendicular to the diameter), which is genuinely useful given the empty schema.

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 one exact native circle') and pins the defining input ('from the two endpoints of its diameter'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling three-point and center-based circle tools. 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 gives coordinate-system rules but never says when to choose this over plasticity_create_circle, plasticity_create_three_point_circle, or plasticity_create_tangent_circle. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection guidance are offered.

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