plasticity_measure_point_to_circular_edge

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it requires 'verified native circle basis and trim samples', states that 'unsupported or stale references are rejected', and enumerates the returned quantities. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four dense sentences with purpose front-loaded and no filler; each clause adds distinct information (routing, return values, preconditions, scope caveat). Slightly long but every sentence 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 complex measurement tool with a deeply nested anyOf/oneOf schema and no output schema, the description covers return semantics, validation preconditions, and topology-specific parameter usage. Only the undocumented revision parameter is left unexplained, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the two edge shapes (edgeId vs segmentEntityId) and point source (explicit coordinate or B-Rep vertex). It omits the edge-midpoint/face-center point variants and does not explain the revision parameter, leaving a residual gap.

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 (measure distance from a point to a native circular boundary) and differentiates itself from neighbors by emphasizing circular geometry and clarifying it is centerline distance 'not clearance to adjacent faces or the owning body'. An agent can distinguish it from measure_point_to_curved_edge/linear/planar siblings 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 routing guidance: 'Use bodyId plus edgeId for Solid/Sheet topology, or bodyId plus segmentEntityId from plasticity_list_curve_directions for a Wire,' naming the sibling tool that supplies the Wire identifier. It does not state exclusions vs the curved-edge measure sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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