plasticity_measure_solid_properties

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 partly covered. The description adds value beyond that: it confirms no document/Undo-history mutation, notes totals include the volume-weighted centroid, and clarifies that mass requires an explicit density — non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by a totals detail and a usage caveat. No filler, and each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 usefully names the returned quantities (volume, surface area, centroid, totals). However, the unexplained required 'revision' parameter and the absence of any pagination/return-structure note leave a gap for a tool the agent must call with two required 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 carry the meaning. It implies 'ids' refer to Solid bodies ('one or more current Solid bodies'), which helps, but the required 'revision' parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving a concurrency/versioning parameter completely undocumented.

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) plus the exact resource (native B-Rep volume, surface area, volume centroid) and scope (one or more current Solid bodies). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling measurement tools such as plasticity_measure_face_properties (faces) and the generic plasticity_measure.

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 clear context: it operates on 'current Solid bodies' and explicitly does not alter the document or Undo history, plus the caveat that it yields geometric evidence rather than physical mass. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. measure_face_properties, body_info) to route the agent between them.

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