plasticity_measure_point_to_linear_edge

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

With readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the return contents (projected point, clamped closest point, supporting-line vs finite-segment distance) and the constraint that references are revision-bound. This is useful disclosure for a measurement op without over-claiming.

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 three sentences are front-loaded with the core operation, then the return shape, then the disambiguation. Dense but every clause earns its place, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating return values, and it notes the revision-bound reference model. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity, only missing fuller point-input enumeration and explicit revision 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three parameters with nested objects, so the description must carry the load. It explains the 'point' parameter accepts explicit coordinates or a current B-Rep vertex, but the schema actually allows four point variants (coordinates, vertex, edge-midpoint, face-center) and none of these are enumerated in prose; the 'revision' binding is only vaguely implied.

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?

The description states a specific verb (measure) and a precise resource (distance from a coordinate/vertex to a finite straight B-Rep edge centerline). It clearly differentiates from siblings like measure_point_to_curved_edge and measure_point_to_circular_edge by specifying 'straight' and 'centerline' geometry.

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?

It clarifies when this applies (straight finite edges) and explicitly excludes face/body clearance ('not minimum clearance to the owning faces or bodies'), which routes the agent away from clearance-style tools. It stops short of naming the curved/circular-edge alternatives explicitly, so it is strong but not fully self-routing.

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