plasticity_define_datum_axis

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety burden is largely carried by structured data. The description adds that the axis is 'revision-bound', a useful piece of behavioral context, but says nothing about what is created/visible afterward, failure modes, or undo behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerations are packed efficiently and nothing needs to be pruned.

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 tool with a complex four-way oneOf schema, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers the input-mode selection well but leaves the revision-binding requirement, the intent field, and the resulting geometry undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It helpfully maps the four definition variants ('points, coordinates, a linear edge, or a cylindrical face') to the schema's discriminated union, which is the hardest part to infer. However, the required 'revision' parameter and the 'intent' parameter get no explanation beyond the loose 'revision-bound' phrasing.

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 (define) and resource (datum axis) and enumerates the four sourcing modes (points, coordinates, linear edge, cylindrical face), which map directly to the schema's oneOf variants. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from close siblings like plasticity_define_datum_point or plasticity_create_construction_plane, so it falls 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus plasticity_define_datum_point, plasticity_set_workplane, or the other construction-geometry tools, and no prerequisites stated. The only usage cue is the implicit mapping of input modes to geometry types.

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