plasticity_import_step

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 real behavioral context beyond that: what the return payload contains (compact document state, body IDs/count, source SHA-256, provenance record with B-Rep measurements) and that the record is historical after further edits. It does not explain what existing document state may be altered.

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 core action, then value-add details about the return payload and follow-up tools. Dense but each sentence contributes; no filler. Minor awkwardness in compressing multiple return items into one clause.

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 appropriately enumerates the return contents, which is helpful. But for a 4-parameter tool with a nested enum-bearing source object and 0% schema coverage, the lack of any path/revision/intent guidance leaves an agent under-informed on how to call it.

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 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only alludes to one parameter, the optional source provenance ('Optionally provide HTTPS source provenance'), and leaves path, revision, and intent entirely undocumented, along with the source enum values.

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+resource ('Import exact STEP geometry into the current document'), and the 'exact STEP' qualifier distinguishes it from generic imports. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings like plasticity_download_and_import_step or plasticity_import_parasolid, so the differentiation is by resource name rather than an explicit sibling callout.

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 offers useful follow-up guidance ('use plasticity_body_info for selected bodies and plasticity_measure_solid_properties for measurements') and a caveat that the provenance record becomes historical after edits. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many other import tools (download_and_import_step, import_parasolid, import_reference_mesh), so usage is only implied.

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