plasticity_export_svg

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description does the heavy lifting by explaining exactness guarantees per curve type, the validation-sampling path, the approximation fallback, metadata marking, and the caveat that returned deviation is a tested maximum rather than a global error proof. 'Without overwriting' is consistent with destructiveHint=false, and no claim contradicts the annotations.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However the remainder is a very long, dense block of qualification detail with mild redundancy ('this does not prove global equality' / 'not a proof of global error') that is heavier than an agent needs for selection and invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what is returned (maximum tested chord deviation, SVG metadata markers). For a complex, high-stakes export tool the behavioral picture is largely complete; the main shortfall is the unexplained ids/path/revision inputs.

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 carries the whole burden for five parameters. It meaningfully explains curveChordToleranceMm and curveChordAngleDegrees (quarter-sample chord checks), but leaves ids, path, and revision semantics unaddressed — a notable gap at this coverage level.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Export coplanar native Wire profiles as a new millimeter-scaled SVG' — plus the scope constraint 'without overwriting'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by routing Solid drawings to plasticity_export_hiddenline_svg, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It names the exclusion clearly ('Noncoplanar Wires are rejected') and points to the correct alternative for Solid drawings. It also advises keeping the .plasticity/STEP as the editable source, which implies this is a downstream copy operation. It stops short of positioning against the other export_* tools (step/stl/3mf/parasolid), so it is not a full when/when-not matrix.

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