plasticity_download_and_import_reference_3mf

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true/destructiveHint=true annotations: IPv4 pinning, redirect and 64 MiB payload limits, ZIP/XML/CRC/path/mesh-index validation, SHA-256-addressed private artifact storage, and persistent registry recording. It also discloses that returned bounds are reference-mesh measurements, not B-rep accuracy.

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 dense paragraph front-loads purpose and scope, then layers safeguards, registry behavior and caveats – most sentences earn their place. It is run-on in places, but no significant filler.

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 complex mutation tool with a nested object, no output schema and destructive/open-world annotations, it covers download pipeline, storage, registry side effects and limitations well. The main gap is documentation of the parameter object's fields.

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% and the description does not document the parameters (intent, revision, or the nested source object's sourceUrl/sourceKind/confidence/license/sourcePageUrl). Only a loose hint at 'source, license and product/SKU' appears, leaving the required 'source' and 'revision' semantics largely unexplained.

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 chain: download one explicitly selected direct HTTPS 3MF file from a public hostname and import it through Plasticity as approximate reference mesh geometry. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_import_reference_3mf (local import), plasticity_download_and_import_reference_mesh (mesh format) and plasticity_download_and_import_step (STEP).

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?

Gives clear context ('Review source, license and product/SKU first') and explicit exclusions ('does not import exact editable CAD or start a print'), and routes the agent to plasticity_get_cad_reference_import for the historical record. It stops short of directly contrasting with sibling import/download alternatives for other formats.

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