plasticity_measure_point_to_planar_face

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false). The description goes beyond them by disclosing supported boundary topology, rejection behavior for stale references, and the semantics of what is returned (signed plane distance vs. distance to the trimmed face, closest point, interior vs. boundary).

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 dense sentences, with the core measurement action and supported inputs front-loaded before the rejection conditions. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence is packed.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned quantities. Combined with the rejection rules and the clearance exclusion, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with the only shortfall being the undocumented point-variant parameters.

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 coordinate and vertex point variants and implies revision guards against stale references, but it omits the edge-midpoint and face-center point types that the schema actually accepts, leaving a meaningful 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 precise verb+resource: measure minimum distance from a coordinate or B-Rep vertex to a trimmed planar face. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like measure_point_distance or measure_point_to_curved_edge, and even disambiguates itself from face-to-face clearance tools.

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-not conditions: curved boundaries other than circles/arcs, non-planar faces, incomplete topology, and stale references are rejected, and it states it does not measure clearance between two bodies. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool to use for those cases.

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