plasticity_download_and_import_step

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

Annotations mark it destructive/open-world, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses IPv4 pinning per request, redirect/archive/response size limits, STEP envelope and archive CRC validation, private content-addressed artifact storage, and provenance hash recording. This is unusually rich behavioral detail for a mutating import.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return shape before the operational details, and every sentence carries content. It is somewhat dense and long, but not padded with restatement.

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, the description supplies the return shape (compact document state plus changed body IDs/count) and points to plasticity_body_info for B-Rep detail. Workflow, safety constraints, and selection prerequisites are all covered.

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 clarifies source.sourceUrl (direct file/archive URL) and source.sourcePageUrl (candidate page URL), but leaves sourceKind, confidence enums, license, revision, and intent unexplained. Partial compensation for a nested 3-param 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 pair (download and import) with a precise resource (an explicitly selected HTTPS STEP file or single-member ZIP) and defines scope as 'exact native CAD geometry.' It is clearly distinguishable from plasticity_import_step (local) and plasticity_download_and_import_reference_mesh (mesh).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to search candidates first with plasticity_search_product_references, review source/license/format/fit, then select one, and warns against using arbitrary untrusted candidates as exact dimensions. This is a full when/when-not/alternative instruction.

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