plasticity_measure_nonparallel_planar_polygon_clearance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: exact return semantics (closest 3D points, zero when regions intersect), hard limits (512 vertices, 4096 decomposition triangles), and an explicit rejection list including stale references. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 verb+resource, then scope, capability, limits, rejection conditions, alternative tool, and a closing exclusion. Despite its density every sentence adds distinct actionable information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what is reported (exact closest points / zero on intersection), the input constraints, and the rejection cases. For a geometrically intricate measurement tool, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly, apart from parameter field detail.

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% and the description carries the burden, but it only obliquely conveys parameter meaning ('a selected face pair', 'stale references are rejected'). It never explains the bodyId/faceId structure of 'first'/'second' or what 'revision' must be, leaving the nested object parameters largely undocumented.

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 ('Measure exact minimum Euclidean distance between two nonparallel trimmed planar B-Rep faces') with the precise geometric scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling plasticity_measure_parallel_planar_face_clearance and from whole-body clearance/collision, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (nonparallel straight-edged polygon faces, concave/holes/nested loops), when-not (parallel supporting planes, circular/curved edges, self-intersecting/touching loops, stale refs) and names the alternative tool for the excluded circular case. Routing conditions are fully stated.

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