plasticity_import_parasolid

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the input must be a validated Parasolid file and that import converts it to editable B-Rep, but it does not disclose what existing document content is affected, whether the current document is replaced, or revision-conflict behavior — notable gaps for a destructive 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the return/provenance detail and the sibling pointer. Slightly overloaded with return-value enumeration, but every sentence carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (document state, body IDs/count, SHA-256, provenance, measurements), which is valuable. However, the 0%-documented nested 'source' object and the required 'revision' parameter are unexplained, leaving the tool's input contract incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 all 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It hints that 'source' is optional metadata recording the asset and source page, but 'path', 'revision', and 'intent' — including the meaning of revision as a document revision — are left entirely to inference.

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 (Import) and resource (Parasolid text .x_t / binary .x_b file) and specifies the outcome ('native editable B-Rep geometry'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like plasticity_import_step, plasticity_import_svg, and the download_and_import variants.

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 only routing guidance is 'Use plasticity_body_info for selected bodies,' which is a follow-up hint rather than a when-to-use-vs-alternative rule. It never explains when to pick this over plasticity_download_and_import_parasolid or plasticity_import_step, leaving the primary selection decision implied.

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