plasticity_define_datum_point

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the point is revision-bound and can be defined from exact current topology, which is useful context, but it does not explain mutation persistence, revision mismatch behavior, or side effects.

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?

The definition is a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource, its revision binding, or its input modes.

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?

The schema is structurally rich and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not repeat parameter syntax. Nonetheless, it is terse for a tool with 0% schema description coverage and leaves 'revision-bound' and 'intent' semantics unexplained.

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 partially does by mapping 'coordinates' and 'exact current topology' to the definition parameter's alternatives and by implying that revision must be supplied. It adds no meaning for the optional 'intent' parameter or for the specific coordinate/topology ID formats.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Define') and resource ('point'), and it distinguishes the tool by its source modes ('coordinates or exact current topology'). It does not explicitly name sibling datum tools such as plasticity_define_datum_axis, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'from coordinates or exact current topology' implies the two main usage modes, giving an agent a usable starting point. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as creating a construction plane or datum axis, nor does it give any exclusions.

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