plasticity_import_svg

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds real value beyond that: it creates native Wires in one history step, closed contours yield revision-bound Regions, and it warns that SVG transforms/curve content can alter resulting placement and topology. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or reversibility.

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 front-loaded sentences with dense but relevant content and no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action immediately, and later sentences add scope and caution rather than repeating the name.

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% parameter coverage, the description covers behavior, region generation, and post-import verification well. It is incomplete on parameter meanings (path, intent, revision) and does not explain what the tool returns, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It only explains sourceUnit in depth ('explicitly defines how SVG coordinate values map to physical length') and gestures at revision via 'revision-bound'; path and intent are entirely unaddressed. With three of four parameters undocumented, compensation is clearly insufficient.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('Import a local SVG as editable native planar Wires') and even specifies the creation mode ('in one Plasticity history step'). This clearly separates it from siblings like plasticity_import_step, plasticity_import_reference_mesh, plasticity_export_svg, and the curve-creation tools.

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 hints at downstream use ('can be extruded or used as profiles') and adds a caution ('verify exact Wire geometry after import'), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as plasticity_import_step or plasticity_create_curves_from_regions, nor any when-not condition, so usage remains inferential.

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