plasticity_inspect_arbitrary_section

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the temporary Sheet and cut results do not persist in the document, which is exactly the kind of side-effect reassurance a section-cutting tool needs.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-persistence caveat immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 should hint at what the intersection result looks like (curve set, sheet, region) and what units or frame it is expressed in; instead it stops at the persistence note. The plane/revision parameters also remain unexplained, so the definition is adequate but leaves a real gap for a geometry-returning tool.

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 three required params (bodyId, revision, plane). The description only obliquely implies 'one Solid' and an 'arbitrary plane'; it says nothing about what 'revision' means (a concurrency/version token?) nor how originMm/normal/xDirection define the cutting frame.

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 and resource: 'Read the exact native B-rep intersection of one Solid with an arbitrary plane.' That clearly distinguishes it from the many curve/measurement siblings, though it never names or contrasts with the near-identical siblings plasticity_inspect_arbitrary_sections and plasticity_inspect_planar_section.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With a plural sibling (plasticity_inspect_arbitrary_sections) and a scan sibling (plasticity_scan_arbitrary_sections) in the list, the agent gets no rule for choosing this singular one-plane variant over them.

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