plasticity_export_hiddenline_svg

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without overwriting' and 'retain .plasticity or STEP', telling the agent the source is preserved. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the orthographic-view prerequisite, millimeter-calibrated output, and visible/hidden line styling.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints and caveats. Each sentence carries information; only minor duplication between the 'orthographic current view' requirement and the set_view instruction trims it below a 5.

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 and a write-style operation, the description supplies the prerequisites, output semantics, and preservation caveats an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it explains none of the six input parameters, though the core task is otherwise well 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% across 6 parameters (ids, path, revision, marginMm, curveChordToleranceMm, curveChordAngleDegrees), and the description never maps meaning to any of them. A passing reference to 'projected model millimeters' loosely touches output units but does not clarify margin or chord-tolerance parameters, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 and resource ('project current native Solid B-rep geometry ... into a new vector SVG') and clarifies it uses Plasticity's hidden-line generator, distinguishing it from the plain plasticity_export_svg sibling. The added note that it is a 'derived drawing, not an editable CAD model' removes the main ambiguity about what the output is.

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 states the precondition ('Requires an orthographic current view') and routes the agent to the sibling tool to satisfy it ('Set a named orthographic camera with plasticity_set_view first when needed'). It does not state when to prefer this over plasticity_export_svg or other exports, so no exclusions/alternatives are given.

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