plasticity_measure_point_to_curved_edge

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial extra context beyond them: results are explicitly approximate, toleranceObserved means only that the sampled criterion was met and is not a certified global error bound, and body/topology references are revision-bound. It also discloses what is returned (closest point/distance, sample count, max midpoint chord deviation) for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The core purpose and the edge-input selection rule are front-loaded, with caveats (approximation, tolerance semantics, revision binding) following. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; only the repeated 'do not report as exact/clearance' phrasing is slightly redundant.

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 compute-heavy measurement tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the approximation caveat, the validity window (revision-bound), and the input construction rules. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate; it explains the two edge variants (bodyId+edgeId vs bodyId+segmentEntityId) and the meaning of requestedToleranceMm/toleranceObserved and the revision binding. It does not document the four point input modes (coordinates, vertex, edge-midpoint, face-center) or maxSegments, so a small gap remains.

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 precise verb+resource with scope qualifiers: estimate point distance to a non-linear, non-circular B-Rep edge or native Wire segment via adaptively sampled polyline evaluations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from exact analytic siblings (line/circle tools) and from body clearance measurements, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 per-case instructions: for Solid/Sheet pass bodyId plus edgeId; for Wire pass bodyId plus segmentEntityId sourced from plasticity_list_curve_directions. It also states when NOT to use it ('For dimensions that need exact 0.01 mm proof, use exact line/circle tools or request a more suitable native analytic method'), naming the alternative condition.

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