plasticity_import_reference_mesh

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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: that the mesh is approximate, that sourceUnit is required because STL is unitless, and that bounds/triangles are 'reference evidence only.' But it does not explain the destructiveHint=true behavior (why an import is destructive, what state it alters) even though the hidden annotation flags it.

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-loaded with the action and result, and the unit/model-accuracy caveat follows logically. Each sentence contributes, though the middle sentence is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more load. It covers purpose and the sourceUnit rationale but leaves revision and intent undefined, and does not address the destructive behavior implied by annotations.

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 justifies sourceUnit well (STL unitless, OBJ scale ambiguous), but says nothing about path, revision, or intent, leaving three of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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), resource (local STL or OBJ), and the outcome (approximate reference mesh in one Plasticity history step). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like plasticity_import_step, plasticity_import_parasolid, and plasticity_download_and_import_reference_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?

It implies usage by warning that the mesh is 'reference evidence only' and directing users to CAD/drawings/user-confirmed dimensions 'for exact modeling.' However, it never states when to choose this tool over the sibling imports (download_and_import_reference_mesh, import_reference_3mf) or any preconditions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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