plasticity_create_vertex_distance_measurement

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

Annotations establish the mutation safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully goes beyond them: it discloses that the measurement is persistent, participates in document Undo/Redo, and stays attached to its topology. That is real behavioral value for a write operation. It stops short of stating return values, naming/overwrite behavior, or how the required revision interacts with concurrent edits.

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 zero filler; the persistence/Undo-Redo/topology facts follow as supporting context.

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?

With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a 5-parameter nested payload, the description covers the what but leaves essential call-time detail unexplained, most notably the required revision parameter and the optional name/intent fields. It is adequate to understand the tool but not complete enough to invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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% across 5 parameters, including two nested objects (first/second each requiring bodyId+vertexId) plus name, intent, and a required revision string. The description only loosely maps to first/second via 'between two B-Rep vertices' and says nothing about revision (apparently a concurrency token), name, or intent, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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+resource: create a persistent point-to-point distance measurement between two B-Rep vertices. It is unambiguous what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as plasticity_measure_point_distance (transient) or plasticity_create_topology_distance_measurement, so an agent must infer the difference from the word 'persistent' alone.

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 phrase 'between two current B-Rep vertices' hints at a prerequisite, and 'persistent' implicitly contrasts with transient measure tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated preconditions (e.g. that the vertices must exist in the current document/revision), and no named alternative for quick, non-persisted checks.

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