plasticity_measure_point_distance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Topology references are revision-bound,' warning that vertex/edge/face references tie to a specific revision.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the revision caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only measurement tool with no output schema, the description names the returned quantities (distance and XYZ delta) and the input forms, which is largely sufficient. The main gap is the unexplained 'revision' parameter semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate; it does so for first/second by naming the four input forms (coordinates, vertex, edge-midpoint, face-center) that map to the schema's oneOf branches. The 'revision' parameter is only weakly implied ('revision-bound') rather than explained.

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 ('Measure') and precise resource ('straight-line distance and XYZ delta between two points'), and enumerates the accepted point types (coordinates, vertices, edge midpoints, face points). This clearly delineates it from point-to-edge/point-to-face sibling measures.

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?

The description makes the context clear: it operates point-to-point between two entities, which implicitly distinguishes it from the point-to-linear-edge / point-to-planar-face measures. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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